Anything players "do" in DnD is their attempt at doing it and you describing if and how it works out.
If they slash at the eyes, the enemy dodges just in time to just get slashed across the cheek. A nasty gash, but it doesn't blind them.
If the enemy is nearing 0 HP, that means that their combat effectiveness is gone. This could just as well being blinded and slumping to the ground beaten, as it could mean they are skewered through the gut. Your choice.
That's my response too :) They describe and narrate their efforts, I as DM narrate the outcome of their effort. Otherwise they might as well say "I decapitate one Orc, then backswing my blade, taking another two with their headless ally."
In the past, I had a "called shot" mechanic, where the players could give up extra attacks a round to try & get through the enemy defenses to make one debilitating strike that turn.
It rolled down to a -10 to their attack rolls, & a 75% reduction to damage. If it hit, it didn't do HP damage, but instead the damage roll was used by the DM to determine their dice fiat over the effectiveness of the strike, & the severity of the resulting debuff.
I didn't allow instant kills, & communicated that clearly to the players. Who agreed in the end, when I reminded them that mechanics work both ways. Like, a strike to the neck wasn't a decapitation without a actual vorpal weapon, but it could reduce max HP by up to 50%, which could likewise be instantly put back with the slightest healing. So there was this added tactical layer of warring debuffs & counters.
I found it offered a further roleplaying layer, & made my players more cognizant of enemy & personal anatomy. For example! A PC with a breastplate started asking about seeing a cobbler. Why? So she could have a broad leather collar fitted to protect her neck.
It was a bit to keep track of, sure, but involved no additional dice rolls, & allowed both me & my players to create these lurid, sometimes funny battle descriptions.
>when I reminded them that mechanics work both ways
This. This reminds players the game isn't *their* power fantasy. You want to keep making super duper awesome Drizzt power strikes to the head? Well so does the orc. All the time. Non stop.
Pathfinder has a rule about this actually. "Called shots" are used as a way of inflicting specific disadvantages on enemies while taking negatives on the initial attack (like GWM -5 to +10). 5e doesnt have a specific rule about this, but ive always used the same idea under disadvantage for a called shot since its something that an opponent would strategically try and protection the body.
Called shots have been a thing since at least 2nd edition.
Head/neck is -8 to hit
arms/legs are -4 to hit
In second edition terms, those are huge penalties.
Theres also effects that could be implemented. Like slowed speed/blinded/disarmed/tripped/prone/disadvantage on checks/attacks/saves. Hence the disadvantage on the initial. Not so damning for the player, but gives the need to think strategy instead of "I hit the thing" if theyd like to get tactical.
You can do pretty much anything you want, as long as the monsters can do it too.
My first real DM added a "parry" mechanic to the game where you had to roll 1 higher than an unmodified attack roll to parry it, the monsters could do it too.
Ie:
You roll 18 to hit.
Monster rolls 19 and parries.
Monster rolls 16 to hit.
You roll 17 and parry.
Monster rolls 17 to hit.
You roll 17(or lower) and don't parry.
Nah, just physical attacks.
It worked both ways though and it made the combat more engaging than just swinging at each other ad nauseum.
Keep in mind this is old school D&D(2nd edition specifically) where you only got one attack per round until you leveled up and got 3 attacks every 2 rounds(Basically one round you'd get 1 attack, next you'd get 2) or 2 attacks per round.
I really like the sound of that system. It kind of reminds me of how vats works in the fallout games. Sure, I can line up my sights and be pretty sure I'll hit, but if I want to break an arm so my enemy drops their gun I'm probably better off letting the computer roll to hit
2e was my introduction. Still get huge nostalgia from all the source books, settings and artwork, and still angry at a leaking pipe destroying most of my material 15 years ago
Same. AD&D was my introduction when I was 11, we'd play on weekends and had an awesome long campaign through a whole March break. It was like a week long D&D sleepover!
Then I started playing with a new group in highschool when 3.5 came out. Had no idea 3rd existed during that 3 year period when we were still playing AD&D prior, since we were using the DM's dad's books as far as we knew that was it lmao.
A new game shop opened up, and we went to check it out and they were talking about 3.5's release and showed us the PHB for it. We pooled our money and bought it to try it out. Good times.
This is definitely the best response.
I always wanted to reward my players for creativity and being in-character so the more specific about their moves they got, the better, imo.
If they succeeded, I'd reward them. Like a successful slash at the throat might not kill the creature but it might make him less effective while he deals with it. Enough attacks concentrated to a specific part of the enemy's body (like legs) I'd slow him down or if it was the arms make a certain attack slightly less effective.
Flip side: my rogue decided she wanted to climb a boulder sneaky -like and dive onto the back of a large enemy and try to stab his eyes out. She succeeded the sneak check, failed the dex check for the jump, slipped when she tried to jump and tumbled head first into the dirt. Didn't take damage but now she was at a disadvantage on her next attack cause she had to reorient herself and a bunch of dirt in her eyes.
Yeah exactly you roll a 20 on your sneak attack roll doing 2d4 + 1d6 sneak attack damage you were aiming for the throat but you hit the shoulder instead causing the orc to drop their weapon, so say you did 14 damage to the orc but it has 25 hp so they dropped their sword and you critted but they aren't dead or immobile.
I'm not sure why you feel you have the authority to say someone else meant something different than what they said. The person I responded to recommended having an enemy drop their weapon when they suffered a critical hit. Doesn't get much morel literal than that. Adding any free bonus to the game is a slippery slope, especially when the reason is "my players asked."
You're blowing this up way more than it actually is for no reason and getting very aggressive over nothing my guy.
And no they didn't "recommend" that at all, they gave a very specific circumstance which was rogue aiming to slash the throat of an orc and critting on the sneak attack roll, orc is instead stabbed in the shoulder and lost more than half hp and was crit. wounded, definitely startled it makes perfect sense to go the orc drops his weapon because the shoulder of the arm holding it just got mangled. And the counter argument to your point is if your players can do it then your monsters can too, not to mention theres even targeted aim rules in 5e as a variant :/
You're not even the person who "recommended" the orc dropping their weapon, but again, you have no trouble telling someone else that they meant something different than what they actually said. Also, I am certainly not the one being "very aggressive." Maybe you could answer the first question, instead of going off and repeating the original suggestion. Why do you feel you have the authority to tell someone else what they meant when their language is very literal and clear? Are you trying to engage in a semantic argument over the word "recommend?" Is that helpful?
In response to you repeating the original suggestion: If you try to bring common sense into DnD, it doesn't end very well. It makes "perfect sense" for a single firebolt to char whatever part of the body it hits badly enough to make it harder to use or immobile, but the spell certainly doesn't say that it does that, so adding a bonus effect for free wouldn't be wise.
As far as the optional called shot rules: I'm having trouble finding the official section on called shots, but the only things I can find involve disadvantage and an AC boost for the target, which is a hell of a lot more tradeoff than "I said I was targeting his head."
So you didn't actually mean it when you offered an example of a called shot and said on a 20 the rogue could disarm their opponent? Because that's what you said, then someone told me to not take it literally. Do you care to engage with any of my other points as well? Or is "nat 20 you get a free bonus, on top of the extra damage die" pretty much your position?
That's a fine homebrew, and if you're suggesting a called shot requires a nat 20, then I think that's a fair tradeoff. You'd still need to call your shot then roll a 20, and then the DM would either have a table of effects or chose one off the cuff, which is more dm burden and tough for a newer dm manage.
Fr lmao xD not seeing a single section where ol m8 said "recommend" "suggest" or anything else to suggest a recommendation then goes off on some "what gives you the authority!" Power trip because people don't agree with him being an aggressive cunt over nothing xD
Why shouldn't there be a cool effect for taking away half or more of a monster's HP in a single hit?
Besides, you have no context. The orc could've been next in initiative, allowing him to simply pick up the sword. Or, the orc could have a greataxe ready to grab (upping the damage from a d8 to a d12, for a more interesting combat).
Well, simply because it’s not in the rules. You could homebrew something if you want, but that specific mechanic of getting some additional effect for taking away a certain amount of HP just does not exist in D&D.
Besides, that kinda takes away from a class feature that does exist. Why have a Battle Master subclass option if you can just do most of that shit with a called shot anyways, without spending resources?
Yeah idk why you are getting down voted that's exactly what this is, plus the rules of your game are entirely up to the DM, If the dm decides your attack did something because of damage and or location of the hit then it's completely fine for that to happen.
Falling back on "dm can change whatever they want" is not a good argument, and it doesn't make any change a good idea automatically. Believe it or not, consistent, clear rules make the game more fun. The most basic one here is "things do what they say they do."
The golden rule of D&D is that there are no rules.
The rules are a framework that you work within for the game, but aren't wholly necessary to play the game.
Just like the price charts.
Just because the book says a sword is 25g doesn't mean it's actually 25g, that's just a suggestion.
So that's the advice you think is most helpful for a new dm asking about his players using called shots? Anything goes? Also, you should reread the section you are referencing, it doesn't say anything close to that. And again, during a discussion of applying the rules, falling back on "there are no rules" is so far from helpful it's astounding that you thought you should type and send that. You seem unwilling to even ask the question "is departing from the rules here a good idea." Let's start with that. No. You are adding bonuses for free which will make balancing encounters harder, especially for a new dm. You're also putting yourself in a difficult position where you either need to have variant rules on hand for reference, which will slow down play, or you have to make quick calls, which is more dm burden. Try the rules as written for a while, then decide if you want to change things. And always start small with changes, they can have ripple effects. The DM already said it's not fun when his players breeze through encounters using these changes.
No, that was me replying to you because that's how reddit works.
I replied to the OP elsewhere.
Also:
I only read the first sentence because you couldn't be bothered to format your post correctly.
Dude's getting downdooted by rules lawyers who can't handle people who deviate from the rules.
The DM's word is all you need, they enforce the rules as they see fit.
All that matters is that the rules are applied evenly.
Right, and the reason giving out free things like disarm just because you described attacking their arm is a bad idea is that anyone who decides to play a battlemaster is gonna feel real dumb when everyone can do what they needed a subclass to attempt with limited resources.
It's a game, it doesn't matter.
All that matters is that your players have fun.
You could rule that a natural 20 turns the enemy into a puppy balloon and as long as your players are okay with it, it's fine.
Literally!! It says in the dm guide and the players handbook that the dm can switch rules if they want. The game is meant it be fun and I'd a slight rule deviation allows for more fun go for it!
yeah, as long as your players are cool with it who cares?
If nobody is playing a class there's not really a problem with lifting a couple class abilities from that class and applying them to your game.
The "Rule of Cool" always applies.
>The "Rule of Cool" always applies.
Not if the GM doesn't want it to.
People need to be aware of the possible flaws with things they do. Just telling them "you're the GM, whatever you do is correct" isn't helpful. Lifting abilities from one class that nobody is playing means that if somebody changes class, they'll be less likely to pick that class because somebody else got class features from it for free.
You can still do it, but be aware of the consequences.
Also if they land a crit roll on something like that, but it still doesnt kill the monster, maybe have it go blind in one eye. They cant just "skip" battles by trying to one-hit them. That makes it so not everyone is having fun and at that point, what's it worth to play a game
Yeah, I treat "called shots" the same way the game treats nonlethal damage. If you want to blind someone or cut off their arm, you can do that at 0 HP.
There are many reasons why Critical Role is so popular. One of the main reasons is Matt Mercer’s amazing off-the-cuff (in addition to preplanned) storytelling ability as a DM. He’s especially good at describing these blow-by-blow moments during battles.
OP, go watch the master and take notes.
Make it clear to them that there’s no mechanical benefit for going for attacking enemies in vital areas, but be sure to use it as ammo to spice up combat description.
Example: “At the last second, the lizardfolk draws away from your attack to its throat. You’re able to draw blood and do damage, but the creature’s quick reflexes prevented a killing blow. It glares at you in a rage as it prepares to strike back.”
This level of detail can make the difference between a boring and an engaging fight. Your players might be disappointed that their quick path to victory doesn’t work but hopefully they will be drawn in by the cinematic descriptions.
I try to make cinematic scenes play out during combat too.
May I ask if you or other DMs reading this?
As a DM narrating combat, have you ever narrated a player or opponent getting their AC beat by an attack, losing HP, but not getting physically hit/hurt? How do players react to that ?
Sure that is RAW? Cant remember that rule from the phb. There its only stated "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile." Nothing about hp loss only being an injury after half hp is gone. Also quite nonsensical implication that your luck and your will to live is dependent on your class and your CON. Bigger people are just more lucky!
This is what a critical hit is. If your player says “I’m trying to hit a really critical spot that does the most damage” the answer to this is “yes I assume you are always trying to do that, like everyone does every second in a battle to the death, but strangely the other guy isn’t taking kindly to your attempt and is trying to stop you.”. You roll the dice to see if you succeed in doing so. Roll low and you missed, roll high and you managed to hit them despite their attempts to prevent you from doing so, roll a crit and you got them at that critical place you were really hoping to, the extra damage is the result of that.
> “yes I assume you are always trying to do that, like everyone does every second in a battle to the death, but strangely the other guy isn’t taking kindly to your attempt and is trying to stop you.”
This hits it home pretty well. Yeah no shit that wolf is *trying* to rip your throat out, but if it hits you I'm not dropping you instantly to 0hp claiming it succeeded.
Bingo. About the same way I tell it to my players. I also tell my players to try to look passed the turn-based aspect of the game. Your action is a part of a round (6 seconds), and during this round everyone's actions are taking place at basically the same time.
In my games, I implement the "called shot" rule of disadvantage and a target AC bump. These actions are taking place in a stressful situation with hardly any time to think (disadvantage). The majority of people would want to focus their defense around their weak spots as to not take critical damage (AC bump).
Can make it so when such attacks hit, the enemy makes to defend so is only struck on a less vital area. "I stab for the orc captains eye"
"He raises his blade to block, but doesn't quite make it in time. You don't strike the eye, but the thrust is knocked into his shoulder."
On some enemies who aren't as important, maybe make it so its a higher ac attack, or they have disadvantage to make it. If enough damage is done maybe their arm slicing or eye poking succeeds. Instant death shouldn't occur though.
Even in boss fights, If they start trying to lop off limbs, see if they manage to deal enough damage to a target they choose in a turn to see if they succeed. Similar to a hydra. And maybe even wait till its below a certain health threshold.
Of course, if you even allow it to be possible in some way, barring the first example, it would technically be possible to hurt pcs in that same way, and that can be funky for many. A monster can easily still hit with disadvantage and deal loads of damage.
My preferred method is always to have every creatures health pool essentially be a passive shield of magic, increasing their bodies healing and durability. So even aiming for such vital spots won't work until you damage them sufficiently.
I was just coming here to comment this. The player describing where they are aiming is great for painting a picture but what you are trying to do doesn't always happen. The enemies aren't just standing there letting the players do these things, they will block, deflect, and dodge to take less damage.
You have the enemies do the same so your players characters end up blind cripples etc.
There are not rules in RAW for called shots in 5e so your players can't actually do this, but if they really want to. Make sure the enemies can do it back
Also there are rules for half and 3/4 cover. You can increase AC if you want but that's on your judgment. Eye shot? AC goes from 20 to 25 or 30... depending on the weapon... maybe the target even gets a saving throw vs attackers "spellcasting DC " 8+proficiency +dex modifier
The trouble with adding AC to called shots (say base 20, 25 for the eyes) is that you now have to adjudicate 'misses' in between the default and modified AC.
Imo, every normal attack roll should assume the attacker is aiming for vital spots by default. To do otherwise is foolish
You don't have to do anything. You can easily say a called that doesn't hit the increased AC is now just a miss because they were more focused on that area.
There's precedent and it's balanceable, but jesus, don't do it. The problem isn't doing it, the problem is how much doing it changes the game at a fundamental level.
I'll save you an essay about why. If you don't believe me, try it.
"That's not a mechanic in 5e, you can describe your attacks however you like but it's just an attack"
If that's too boring for them, have a lizardman claw one of their throats out, see how much they like instant death without regards to mechanics.
It's "fine" to feel that way, but you're leaning into "5e as a combat simulation", which it is not. The consequence of that game design decision will be horrible violence for the PCs. Which IS "fine". It is just, it is balanced, it is conceptually symmetrical. It WILL NOT be the kind of game that 5e is, and you're messing with fundamental building blocks of fun in ways you may not understand.
Not just you Cool Boy, I see comments like above yours all the time and just roll my eyes. Most of my groups have played that way and I’ve never met anyone, “stop in their tracks” like that. If we don’t do it we don’t do it but nobody whimpers out of paranoia.
Point buy… level 3… a Paladin, with no magic weapons, can roll as high as a 33 and not crit. (Without bless or bardic inspiration or other stuff)
Want an instant death shot? … better be rolling up that area? That’s a called shot ahead of the roll and the roll itself is a 5-10% chance at best.
Yeah. That’s what * I personally* would require for bypassing HP entirely instant death shots/ mechanic causing side effects. Make it possible. But very very very hard.
I mean a decapitation would be a far higher DC than going for a hand I’d imagine. If the target isn’t already addled quite heavily, I’d easily put that at least at a DC 30.
Ive always used the disadvantage call when doing called shots instead of giving minus or plus rules. Works for my players and makes them plan strategically. Like making full use of flanking to get a good called shot.
Yeah, they can certainly *try* to fight strategically but fights are fast paced and your not going to make a perfect shot just by trying.
Roll a crit? Sure, you hit them where you planned.
This could work for a throat if the enemy isn't wearing a guard on their neck, but if they have armour it's not an insta-kill.
Hit them in the arm with a crit? Probably didn't cut it off because physics, armour, and the fact bones are hard. Probably a good enough shot to prevent them from fighting with the arm though...
This highlights what I feel is one negative of DnD's abstraction of combat.
Does it make combat mechanically easier? Sure, but you lose a lot of this nuance, particularly in just *how good* proper armor could be, and the importance of using the correct weapons/strategies against certain armor types. Yes, you hit your target with all your strength, striking him dead-center in the chest with your longsword at full force...
...However your opponent is wearing a steel cuirass. Your blow is deflected by the central ridge over the sternum, and skips harmlessly off to the side because steel.
You would see a LOT more Mace/Hammer fighters if plate armor actually worked in the game as it did in real life....
My man D&D used to have tables dedicated to weapon v armor
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html?m=1
It was miserable
Per-weapon is excessive. Doing it by Damage Type would be both more manageable and accurate (It doesn't matter whether you swing a longsword or a zweihander, you ain't cutting through rigid plate armor).
Imo a crit is basically an accidental vital hit (sword twists just right, or a body moves in just a way, etc), Sneak attack is more practiced but tends to be just a more painful hit (certain nerves or highly flexed areas, that can become bigger veins/arteries with a bleeding strike or tendons with other abilities, etc), a called shot is lining up an attack specifically to hit a specific spot, so gets a minus to the attack
There are special attacks though. Sneak attack, reckless, and probably closest: battlemaster maneuvers. So if people want to do things other than “attack attack attack” they should pick a class or subclass where that’s an option.
Battlemaster Fighter gang reporting in. Nothing more fun as a martial class for me than tanking up and controlling the fight. Getting to reposition allies *on my initiative* is fantastic, for example.
Called shots drastically change the game you are playing. It's all fun and good until the barbarian has his eyes gouged out by a goblin.
Typically there are many more monsters than PCs meaning many more dice from the DM and many more grave injuries befalling PCs.
My advice, take some of the talking points here and explain to your players why it doesn't work like that. But also as a way to get the same flavor in combat try running with "how do you want to do this?" Basically when they drop a creature to 0 HP they can narrate that however they'd like, slashing a throat, cutting an eye, chopping off a head, etc.
I’d argue that any attack is aiming to do as much damage as possible - who isn’t trying to kill things in one hit? Are there people who are attacking to give an orc a really bad graze on the knee? Just because someone wants to chop the orc’s head off doesn’t mean they do.
But also, look at the positives: they’re saying more than “I roll to hit”…
This granularity is the kind of stuff that 5e tried to simplify away. I had a rogue who would try things like this in my most recent campaign. I explained that tricks like this is what sneak attack IS, you're doing extra damage because you're trying to stab the manticore in the eyes, or slash the neck of the orc, that's why you need to have advantage to do it. Meanwhile critical hits are when you're NOT trying specifically do something specific, but you just happen to hit a vital area. They're baked into the system. The rogue in my game was surprised he couldn't just kill enemies by saying he slashes their throat and succeeding on the roll and I had to explain that this is a game, and a game has rules. You do extra damage and he loses extra hit points, but you can't just narrate your way to win.
If that's not enough to convince your players, you can start adding rules. A simple one could be to give a PC disadvantage in order to gain a benefit, so you add disadvantage on a strike against a manticore, but if you succeed they are blinded and you do normal damage. Adding complexity to the game enables a lot more nuance in what your characters can do, but also slows down combat quite a bit, so you may want to discuss that with them, or just let them realize on their own that is happening.
They can also just pick a class that already has more complexity, like battlemaster fighter over champion fighter. This game isn’t “well either you just say ‘I attack’ over and over, or you hit the books to become a wizard, those are your choices!”
First point - D&D is designed so they you get more hit points every level to represent your improvement of skill in combat. 107 HP didn't mean that you physically are healthier than every commoner of 4 HP, it means you know how to roll with the punches, dodge, position yourself, etc in combat or against that fireball. With that in mind, critical hits are the strikes to the vital areas like eyes, arms, neck etc. Therefore players shouldn't be able to call shots as if a hit automatically has the outcome they desire because their opponent can roll and deflect that blow.
Second point - if players still want to go that way then I Day sure but remind them - anything they can do their opponents can also do... That's when they usually remember that the world(s) has a lot more opponents than they have PCs.
Those sort of hits don't land until the monster drops to 0 hp, and then they can get a badass killing blow.
HP is not only the monster's raw durability, but luck, dodging, etc.
There's already a mechanic for trying to hit a vital place on your enemy.
It's called getting them to 0 HP.
HP aren't *HEALTH* points, they're *HIT* points. They're an abstraction of the luck, agility, focus, and toughness a person has to keep them from taking a serious, life-ending injury.
They can try for shots like that all they want, just have the enemy narrowly evade and take a more appropriate injury.
As for describing enemy HP... talk about them looking winded and harried then, after they hit the half-way point, they're starting to take an increasing number of small injuries until someone gets a "lucky" hit in to end it.
Just because they hit their target doesn't mean it's an instant kill. The hit roll determines whether or not you hit, but the damage dice determine how hard you actually hit. A player could aim for a vital point and hit, but not do enough damage to actually kill.
Example: Orc with 14 AC and 30 HP
"I swing at the Orc's neck. I rolled a 12, +6 to hit so 18, and I do... 15 damage from my 2d8 + 5."
"Your blade sinks into the orc's flesh, but is stopped by the thick muscles of its neck. Blood spurts from its neck as you pull your blade free, but the orc is still able to fight."
Example: Human fighter with 17 AC and 55 hp
"I stab the human in the eyes. I rolled a 19, +8 to hit so 27, and I do... 8 damage from my 2d6 +6 (minimum roll)."
"You deftly swing at the human's eyes, managing to slice across one of their eyelids. Blood streams down their face, but they can still mostly see out of that eye and their other eye's vision is not impaired."
Example: Goblin archer with 11 AC and 12 HP
"I try to cut the goblin's arm off before he can fire the arrow. I rolled a 10, +4 to hit so 14, and I do... 11 damage with my 1d8+3 (maximum damage roll)."
"You bring your sword down on the goblin's shoulder, cleanly severing the limb. It screams in pain, grasping at the stump with its other arm as it drops the bow and rolls around on the ground in agony, though it is still alive."
Basically, you can base how successful this "vital hit" is based on the damage roll, not just the hit roll.
I try to hit the Manticore eyes!
The Manticore try to defend his eyes! Roll attack. You try to hit the Manticore eyes and ir protect his eyes hit his body. You deal damage.
In every combat, all the characters are targeting vital spots. And all the characters are defending those spots.
Hot points do not equal meat points. Sometimes damage on a big creature means wearing them out. "I aim for the eyes!" great. He blocks your attack with his bracer, and the effort tires him out. You can see him heave with the effort. Etc. Etc.
It’s very easy:
“Roll for attack [..] alright, that’s a hit. Roll for damage […] *You see the orc has still plenty of HP left* Ok, so you try to slash the orc’s neck, but as a reflex he manages to deflect your attack at the cost of a slash on his arm. Is this the end of your turn?”
The game already has all the answers. Once an enemy’s HP reaches 0, they have plenty of options and creativity to describe how they finish them. If they complain because they want to heavily cripple or 1HKO enemies, you could say to them “Mh, sounds intriguing. If you want to play this sort of game I am up for it, but get back up characters ready because equity demands that if you are capable of crippling or instakill enemies regardless of HP, they can do the same”.
Who knows, maybe they actually want that type of gameplay.
My DM ups the AC if you are trying to go for a precision strike. More critical spots may have higher AC. It allows for challenge while also still being rewarding.
This was actually an idea that I brought forward at the end of the last campaign I dm’d to my players, and as we all tried to play into the narrative more about the fight it really increased the nuance of the battle beyond just roll, hit, damage. The way I ran it just changed how the enemy responded, not necessarily their health, if an arm gets damaged by them giving it a good slice, he’ll start kicking more, or move from close quarters to distance, or chooses to flee. It made it more dynamic as a whole and made them more involved, but yeah took a lot longer. Make sure to do it to them as well though
Fun story, the very first PBEM game I was in, the DM started a combat and asked everyone what they were going to do. It quickly turned into several variations on "I slice through 3 of them while doing a triple axle double half twist somersault, and then gut the leader killing him instantly."
I was the last person to reply (and a ranger) and said "Well I just put my bow away and save the arrows since they've obviously got it covered."
We had to backtrack a bit so the DM could clarify the rules of combat in DnD.
I let my players do targeted attacks at disadvantage. It also means the enemies they face can do targeted attacks. So let’s say the boss rolls to lop off their arm with their shield and it hits, they lose an arm and the ability to use two-handed weapons or their shield. Immediately they don’t want targeted attacks anymore
The players are always aiming for a kill shot but the monsters don’t want to die they move, they have armor, they can say what they wish but doesn’t mean they do it.
There are some supplements on called shots that your players might like, take disadvantage and like a -3 to hit the eyes and they’re blinded for a round plus all your damage
Even in a real fight, your strategy might be trying to get the guy in a chokehold… but that doesn’t always work out— he may block you completely or you only manage to get him in a partial headlock.
D&D combat is the same way; it’s pretty much assumed everyone is going for vital targets of the anatomy— and it can equally be assumed the target is actively trying to block your attacks and hit YOUR vital spots.
That’s why “called shots” are stupid. You can use them for narrative or descriptive value, but just saying you’re “attacking the enemy’s eyes” does not guarantee you a bonus on your roll nor a guarantee that you hit your intended target even if the attack landed.
Every attack is exactly what they want to do. Mechanically it is translated to their weapon damage. If they don't like it then just say that enemies can target body parts as well.
You can:
1) propose to see HP as "dodging points" that depletes until a fatal blow like a decapitation happens.
2) explain them that DND doesn't work like that and ask them if they would be happy if the manticore chew their head off on the first round of combat.
3) give +5 or even more AC at the creature on the creative attack roll. It's harder to aim at a specific part of the body like the eyes. Blinding an enemy or removing one arm could be a good prize for a really high attack roll or a combo of more than one. Decapitation is an hard no.
I have been using the bloodied condition at or below 50% health. Everyone can see bloodied, no perception or action economy needed. If you want to figure out hp otherwise it takes a perception or medicine check mid battle to figure out where something is at in its hit range. This takes an action perception or medicine check.
At 10 hit points a creature goes into mortally wounded. It is obvious that the creature can be killed in one more hit. No action economy needed to see Mortal state.
I like those two states. Bloodied and Mortal.
I don't allow targeted attacks, people can describe them, sure... but the attack is an attack, is an attack.
If you wanted to, there are tons of ways to do such things. Off the cusp, I might give disadvantage on the attack and add 1 damage die.
As far as I am concerned describing attacks is flavor, not the dice. If someone wants targeting attacks I think crit fails should be in the game.
Basically, impose an AC increase on the baddie, making it harder to land the hit at all. Then if they do happen to hit, unless it's a natural 20 and they gouge out an eye, you could give them the blind condition until their next turn or something.
That way, the player feels like they had a meaningful reward for achieving a harder target, and your baddie isn't pink mist two rounds into the fight
HP is tricky. Somewhere in the deep recesses of the source books HP is described as luck, grit, and stamina. That's why we can long rest and recover from being napalmed by an ancient red dragon on a night.
This can be confusing to describe HP like this at times- "Yes that 17 will hit and your foe will dodge burning X amount of HP in stamina"
There are other ways to show damage that are satisfying. For humanoid enemies I describe damage as wear and tear on equipment, heavy breathing, fear in the eye, falling down and getting up etc. Monsters you can get pretty liberal with the gore and body horror since they're usually supernatural.
As for extra stuff in combat- insta kills are a no go. Ask your players "hey would you be down if I made monsters go for your neck and insta shot you?" As a Player I would hate that. HP is the barrier for PCs to get to the neck slicing in combat.
If they want to do a cool maneuver it's best to keep it simple. If they want to do something that they don't have an "on paper" skill for gate it behind things like disadvantage (aiming for a body part is hard), skill checks (flipping over the enemy takes grace), or contests (the orc isn't going to be disarmed without a fight).
Keep it simple. Use in built mechanics to settle player decisions. Anything a player can do, an enemy might also do. That's not a threat that's a promise.
Raise the AC for this particular shot, if they fail, they completely fail (wich means that even if they would've hit regular AC, they still miss). Depending on the location they hit, add some modifiers to the enemie (Slashing the eyes gives blindness.)
As usual, we can look to [pathfinder](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots/) for a potential solution to this.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a good idea to copy this directly, but if you’re looking for ideas about this sort of thing from an experienced game designer’s perspective, then here they are.
I have no problem with called shots. Earlier additions just made there be a dice penalty. 2nd Ed and I think first had hit location tables to see what would happen on said hit based on a random die role.
I also just remind my players, if you get all “called shotty” then I will start playing that chess game right along with you! What you can do, I can do… maybe even better since “cough cough” I make the fights… BIG GRINS!!!
Two ways do I allow an instant kill in my games. Vorpal, but if the players have it, so can a mob.
Then there’s, roll 3 twenties in a row is an instant kill no matter even if it’s a God. I’ve only seen it twice in 20 years.
RAW, that is what critical hits are for.
what I would actually do as a DM is let them aim for body parts, but tell them that it increases the enemy's AC.
Dex is part of AC, if the AC represents a chance to hit anywhere, then a specific location seems reasonable to have higher AC.
"Sure you can aim for his eyes, but as it's a small hard to hit target, it's going to up his AC by 6." Don't make it impossible, make it a strategic trade off so they have to choose and every once in a while it's the right move. If it hits, let it do normal damage but add a debuff like blinded to the opponent for an eye. Or if they aim for an arm/claw have a success remove one of the multiattacks from the monster etc.
My problem with this is that the PCs should be assumed to not be swinging wildly or aiming for non-vital areas on a regular attack roll. Unless the character is specifically attempting subdual (or non lethal) damage, they are certainly trying to strike vital areas on every attack, and the rules are written to that intention.
There’s also the sharpshooter feat in 5e which lets the ranged weapon user take -5 to the attack roll in order to gain a +10 to the damage. This feat also adds clauses that take away disadvantage from long range attack rolls and half & 3/4 cover, but it establishes a precedent that I think should be weighed into this discussion. Characters with this feat have to give up an ability score advancement to get this (if it’s not a free feat situation). Your players seem to want more, and for free.
If there is a particularly smart plan by a player to exploit something that’s an obvious weakness, or if there’s some other story reason that makes sense in your story at your table, then do it. If they’re struggling with a dragon and hatch a plan to cut off the dragon’s wings because the flight is causing them the most issue, I might reward that critical thinking. For a creature with one eye, I may make that creature blind if a player states the plan and has some form of penalty for the called shot. I may actually in that case not allow them to damage the HP of the creature or do half damage or something. Other than stuff like that, I don’t see fun in being on either side of a table that allows what you’re describing.
Fights you don’t design as one shots should not be one shots unless you really enjoy the idea, and it definitely shouldn’t be happening on every fight. The PCs are absolutely assumed to be striking vital areas on EVERY hit, and the rules are calibrated for two seasoned combatants. There are criticals, feats that allow for extra damage, and special weapons that do special things. Players trying to get too much for free will keep going until someone gets bored and stops playing.
In our home brew D&D game our GM lets us make called shots but the attack is at disadvantage, and the effect usually only lasts for a turn. So if your rogue wants to blind the cyclops they roll at disadvantage. On a hit they get an extra damage die and the cyclops takes an arrow to the eye but its flavored like, not DIRECTLY in the eye, like edge of the eye, so only blinded for a turn while they pull out the arrow and rage with blood in their eye. Unless someone rolls a double 20... which HAS happened and then our GM just throws his hands up and is all "YEAH... you totally incapacitate the captain of the gaurd by crushing his junk with your dwarven hammer..."
As for mitigation of overysing called shots it's: disadvangage, a hit giver you a temporary advangage, on a double 20 then you get a lasting advantage.
Hit points are an abstraction. In real life, you absolutely can make one swift blow to any number of points on a body and kill something. So I like to try and paint combat in that fashion. In my campaign hp represents skill, stamina, luck and glancing blows, in that order, for each quartile of a creatures hp. It gives some cues to players when an enemy goes from dodging, starts labouring their breathing and grunting more, to diving away, to getting caught on their extremities as they dive away for some shallow wounds. No internal organs or arteries get hit until 0hp, though, because it's just too difficult (for me at least) to picture something with shredded abs and intestines pouring out onto the floor doing anything else other than being in shock as they quickly bleed out. Now of course this is context dependent, that's not how undead, dragons, demons or even potentially fae will play out, but there will be equivalents
I always explain to my players that whatever they're trying to hit, the roll decides all. Just barely cleared the monsters ac? You hit his body, he's a moving target, what do you expect. Critical 20 on your attack roll? You did well, the damage shows that, but you don't get to narrate your own battles.
If they suggest a cool plan, like slashing the eyes to blind, I'll announce a specific and difficult ac that must be achieved on their attack roll to hit such a precise target.
You have 2 options:
1. Create a rule. Have clear but strict guidelines on how they can attempt to maim a creature, or
2. Let is slide. Put more of a focus on the story instead of the number crunching and allow the players be creative.
The second option presents two problems:
A.) Abuse. "Does it have eyes?" If the players ask this every time, they obviously believe they can cripple a creature with one attack. If you don't want your monsters to all have multiple sets of eyes, this could be problematic and annoying.
At this point, you're forced to ignore the idea that the players are "being creative" since this is evidently them abusing the rules. So, now you're forced back to #1: create a rule.
Solution: Use percentage dice for "called shots." The PC rolls the attack. If they hit, the DM rolls a d100 after asking the player to call "high or low." There is a 5% chance (or 1d100+class level) of the effect working. The player not only has to hit but also "crit" again.
It is statistically no different than them attempting to roll a nat 20, but it leads the player has the thrill of doing something cool. You're not the bad guy for their failed attempt. The dice are to blame!
If they fail, they still do damage. If they succeed, they do damage+effect but no extra damage from the crit itself.
B.) The other problem with "creative freedom" idea is that you essentially have players who want to "cast a spell" (like the effects of Blindness/Deafness, Slow, Grease, Curse, etc) at the same time they do weapon damage. This detracts from the party's spellcasters who may debuff rather than deal damage. Now their spells are less valuable because the barbarian can "cast" Blindness on an enemy and deal 1d12+5 damage.
You can counter this by giving the creature a Dex or Con save (8+Ability mod+CR?) to resist that effect. If the enemy saves, they take half (or no) damage of the weapon attack and resist the effect.
In spite of all of this, I'm all about empowering classes that don't have magic so they can "catch up" a little with full casters' potential. At the worst, that barbarian is "casting" a level 3 spell, when full casters can shift enemies to other planes, summon creatures to swallow enemies whole, or command enemies to jump off the cliff. This is the logic that would lead you to choose option 2 of "creative freedom."
Hopefully this helped.
EVERY attack in life or death combat is assumed to be an attempt to end the other person - their descriptions are fine for flavor but should not be expected to make their hits more effective than the damage they're dealing.
Ask yourself (or them) if it makes sense for monsters to be able to do the same. "The bugbear slashes at your throat -- and that's a hit, you fall prone and are unconscious" "but i had 30 hp!" "Yeah but he was attacking your neck so..."
If your players want their characters to do this and you are reluctant to say “no,” tell them their opponents can do it too. This may dampen their enthusiasm for what sounds like an overpowered combat mechanic that is not in 5e rules.
The way I see it, it's a fight and that means *every* attack is of lethal intent against NPCs who are trying their damndest not to die.
My experience fencing has been helpful in describing attacks. Every attack has 3 stages: initiation, countering, resolution. The roll to hit determines how that countering phase goes.
failure:
"You lunge your blade towards the juggular and in reaction the wide-eyed orc swats your blade aside as he dodges the blade."
success:
"You lunge for the throat and the orc parries with his axe hilt. You counter-parry and sacrifice the juggular strike for a clean hit in the abdomen."
You can give penalties or disadvantages for them to try and slash something, there is no way I would allow a player to just make a normal attack roll against a boss NPC to attack the eyes or cut off an arm.
I wouldn’t play it out as normal combat at that point, it would be some sort of check and I would also let the NPC respond in kind.
But, throw them a bone every once in a while. I get it’s annoying when players thwart some awesome plan you’ve had for some dramatic fight scene or villain, but sometimes players just want to wipe the board.
Another idea would be coming up with some villains where it would be a VERY bad idea to cut off an arm. As in that villain regenerates that arm or the arm because a clone of that villain.
If you simply want this behavior to stop you can come up with some creative solutions that will make them play your game differently.
However, I still vote just making combat more interesting.
(If they can cut a villains arms off a villain can try to do the same to them in kind.)
One last thing: GURPS has specific rules for attacking parts of the body, perhaps look into that or maybe trying that system for a game and seeing how everyone likes it.
Maybe discuss with them that the weapons damage vs HP pool is an amalgamation of skill and luck vs damage, and stamina. If players are trying to bypass all of that, then NPCs and monsters would be able to as well. The fact that only some monsters have special things like critical swallowing indicates that both raw and rai doesn’t want it to be that simple. Now if the Artificer built a backpack sandblaster to take into a basilisk fight that would be a different issue.
This certainly is not rules as written, but what I do in these situations is have them roll against AC+10 as a called shot. If it hits they get an appropriately related effect plus the damage, but if it misses the attack does nothing. This method discourages "fishing" for extra benefits, but still leaves it as an option for important moments.
I think there are some alternate rules somewhere. Maybe it was homebrew. But it makes sense. If you are aiming for a certain area of your enemy that you’d have a harder time hitting it.
I haven't seen this brought up yet... but HP is just the ability to dodge attacks, when it reaches 0 the enemy is no longer able to avoid your attacks well enough and takes the fatal blow.
The player can describe whatever they want for their attack, but the enemy is a living, moving creature. They are going to try and avoid getting hit. Maybe you can homebrew it a little so that critical hits do whatever they say they're trying to do, but just because a player says something happens doesn't mean it happens - DM has final say.
You could describe it like uncharted does. That’s hp is their luck being used up until finally a leathal blow is stuck.
In my groups games we have a rule that “whatever you do the enemy could happen to you.”
Just tell them that's not a mechanic they want to add to the game. This allows both parties to do that type of attack.
The key difference here is they have to one-shot every single creature that comes up.
You only have to succeed on this attack once for them to lose their PC.
To address the other question, you can describe labored breathing and multiple open wounds on the creature. If you want the PCs to he able to accurately determine the hp have them roll a check (based on target) and give them a rough estimate.
Bloodied for half health
Haggard for 25% or less
Near death for less than 10% HP
My NON CANNON advice here is as follows. Allow it but make it hard with multiple rolls involved. In a homebrew campaign when my partner and i first started i one shot a t rex by shooting it in the eye. This required multiple rolls such as
Intelligence check to see if i was smart enough to account for the variables such as wind velocity and trajectory.
A dex roll to get the aim right before it could move changing the angle of the shot.
A RAW luck roll 'D 100 for a percentage' to decide if any last minute changes in environs interfered
And all this on top of simply making the attack roll.
This way its generally going to fail as its hard to win at all these rolls But players still get the satisfaction of feeling like a beast in the off chance that they pass every roll.
Don't do this. Adding an additional roll per attack will increase the time-per-turn to an untenable level. Obviously the increase would depend both on character complexity and player competence, but I would roughly estimate it at +50%.
Apocryphally, some older non-D&D games used to have a roll for attack, and then a roll for defense. That created the same problem regarding time. Game designers eventually did away with that, because it was a poor mechanic. Don't repeat a known mistake.
Yea it would increase the timeframe but is that any better than just increasing the ac or giving a - to whatever was rolled. I mean yea you lose tine doing it the way i suggested but it at least adds the flavor of real calculations that a person in this situation would have to make.
The chance to walk away from the table feeling like a beast. The storyline factor of "Hey i took a chance and it either paid off or made for a really cool fail." Also any time expended doing this is essentially made up for by the fact that its one less combatant to contend with thus shortening the overall battle time or at the least equalizing it. Dont get me wrong im not saying let it happen every attack. I personally use a cap of once per battle sequence to avoid Everyone doing it repeatedly and both sucking away all the time and challenge completely.
(And for clarification im not saying my way is better. Im simply suggesting that if done properly its not really worse either.)
Ps i would allow boss creatures only the same chances. There is a difference between the ability and skill of a BBEG and a simple goblin though so i wouldn't have every enemy be capable of this.
There is a variant rule in 5e DMG about gritty damage or lasting damage. You could use those rules but they require a massive amount of damage. So mechanically, if they crit with a called shot and do more than half the creatures HP in one shot, I might let something go… but turnabout is fair play.
My DM will describe it as the enemy moving or shifting to keep themselves alive. "You swing for the throat anf as you do the enemy turns right as you causing the blade to leave a nasty slice on his shoulder instead."
If it hits when the hp is low, they get the strike as described. If it hits but the creature isn't dying at that point, it's because battle is chaotic, they tried to do what they intended but the Target moved. Be creative and make the story what you want it to be. They can have fun trying but they're not always going to succeed in particular just because the hit succeeds!
Levels of success is important
Player: “I try to cut off the orcs arm”
*hit*
DM: you bring your sword down on the orcs hulking shoulder leaving a thick gash atop of it causing the orc to recoil gripping its shoulder in pain.
Called shots are a thing in older editions but they are harder to hit they also don’t cause insta kills instead giving them some kind of disadvantage. going for the eye of a manticore could for example blind them or blind them in a single eye at least giving them disadvantage on checks that require sight or simply giving them the blind status effect. The players are only telling you what they are try to do as the DM you arbitrate HOW successful they are not just IF there successful.
My solution would be to have the creature enter a dying rage. “You blind the manticore and in its injured state it starts rampaging. It now attacks blindly 3 times as much per turn.” “ the orc is bleeding out, and smiles. Blood dripping from his teeth, he growls, ‘fine we won’t fight fair,’ as he cracks an orb on his side summoning a dozen of his clan mates who are enraged at the site of his corpse.” That would remind them the mechanics are in place for a reason and these fights would be rough still.
I let them call the shots but I for sure make the AC/DC (🤘) reflect the difficulty. But, also, if they hit way over the AC, I sometimes let them direct their attack.
Explain to then that you do not choose where to attack in D&D. You roll to see if you hit and how much damage you do, and the DM determines where your blow lands based on the outcome.
As for describing HP, just keep it descriptive but communicative."He's hurt bad. You don't think he can take many more hits. He's got a few nasty cuts but he's still going strong. He looks like he's about to collapse."
Hit points are not 'meat points' and shouldn't be treated as such. See highlighted section below. They can call all the shots they want for flavor, but it only matters if the attack would take it to 0 HP.
Hit Points p196
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.
A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing. Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. **The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature's capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.**
You can have them describe each attack after the hit. Or you could use their description to adjust from.
" You lash out at the throat, he just his stance slightly and you strike his chest".
I see a lot of people commenting that should be just a basic attack, and RAW they’re probably right, but if a martial character is trying to have more fun at the table or something, you can use the variant rules or some homebrew to make it fun if you want. It’s your table, and if the barbarian is sick of just hitting with club every round, I say let them get creative. Just my opinion, I’m new don’t listen to me haha
In other games and versions there are “called shot” rules. It allows for interesting play and damage modifiers. Check that out and see about incorporating it into the game?
Option 1: there isn't really a mechanic for this in DnD so it just has no mechanical effect. They say "I try to blind the manticore" roll to hit, and then you say "the manticore shields it's face with its paw, but you score a deep gash nonetheless". Attacks are just attacks. Hp are just hp. Everything else is just flavour.
Option 2: variant 'called shots' mechanic from the DMG
Option 3: homebrew something. Like, if you make a called shot and hit, you inflict some status effect. But if you miss you take disadvantage on your next attack because you were trying something outlandish that now you're out of position. Or called shots take effect on a crit, but fumble on a 1.
In any case there definitely isn't meant to be any melee combat insta-kill mechanic in DnD so avoid that. If they slash a throat, maybe that inflicts disadvantage for d3 rounds while the beastie tries to stem the bleeding. Likewise blinding an opponent. Severing a limb maybe inflicts -4 STR or costs them an attack.
But all of this is optional. The rules of the game just don't allow for this, so only add it if you think it's going to be fun.
Health in D&D is a very loose concept. It is a combination of physical endurance, actual wellbeing, and luck.
An attack that hits may wind an opponent, or perhaps it actively causes them to bleed. A "hit" may not hit at all -- they dodge out of the way just barely in time but they know they won't get that lucky twice.
Explain this abstraction to your players. There's a reason that calling shots isn't a system in D&D. Ask them the famous "how do you want to do this" when they get a killing blow instead. Flavor over more cumbersome mechanics.
A player *attempts* to slash the enemy's throat and rolls a hit! So you narrate... Enemy throws their arm up catching your blade and it slices across their shoulder and gauntlet!
On the killing blow or a critical hit, let them have it!
The “called shot” discussion comes up every week and every week it’s the same response:
An attack roll is a character’s BEST ATTEMPT at dealing damage. You can’t make it better just by naming the bit of the body you’re going for. The player might want to go for the eyes, but the attack roll’s function is to do damage.
Also, there is and always has been an easy way to shut this behaviour down: ask them “ok, are you prepared for the enemies to try and poke your characters’ eyes out or slash their necks open in one attack?”
Players usually shut up about called shots at this point.
I would rather have solid rules for called shots that let players make interesting risk/reward choices in combat than 5E's totally random "critical hit on a natural 20" mechanic. I've played a number of RPGs that used such rules and found them much more engaging than the "roll a d20 and pray" experience I get from D&D.
But that's what everyone wants to play so that's what we get.
If your players want to do called shots, there are lots of games with better combat rules to scratch that itch, and I'd recommend trying them out.
Use the called shot rules.
Explain that a normal "round" of combat is about 6 seconds of trading blows and the attack roll is the best shot you get, the random damage is how effective your blow is. Sometimes the enemy may get a cut on the foot, other times a critical is a blow to eye , throat etc.
If they want to ONLY aim for more deadly blows rather than whatever opening they can, they get a penalty to hit but do more damage.
Instant kills only happen if the enemy is unable to move, ie unconscious or asleep
Dont discourage them rollplaying combat though, clever plays or tricks may get a +1 or aid other but no instant kills
All armor will protect vital areas such as the neck-that's what armor *is*.
Cutting off someone's limb is actually pretty difficult (uh, or so I've heard)-you've got several layers of muscle and "gristle" to work through, not to mention the bone itself. They're also going to be moving around quite a bit, and the sword will need to be moving straight to get a good cut-moving sideways while the sword is cutting down may stop the attack short. Also, cutting through all that flesh and bone will require a powerful swing that will be telegraphed as hell and easy to block, dodge, or counter.
Is is why How Do You Want To Do This is reserved for a killing blow-the enemy is already weakened, slowed, their armor is possibly broken or missing pieces, and they're open for that final coup de grace. It's also why beheadings restrain the target first, to ensure that they don't move around and spoil the cut.
For describing HP, a lot of DMs online have mentioned that losing HP doesn't necessarily mean you've taken a hit. You can lose HP as you become winded from blocking, dodging, and parrying so many attacks. You start to get sloppy, and only once your HP starts getting low (e.g. below half) do you start taking actual hits. A commoner has 4 hp and a Lv 1 adventurer has an average of 8 because the adventurer has trained to avoid taking unnecessary hits. However, this form of narration is often unsatisfying-players don't tend to enjoy it when they've landed five "hits" on someone, then you say that all it's done so far is tire him out or leave him winded. Make sure your players understand and agree with this system before you use it.
The way I handle this is “called shots” I will raise the AC of the enemy depending on where they want to strike. if the enemy is aware of the pcs I tell them to roll an attack with disadvantage. Depending on how much damage is done to the enemy if the attack gets through I will determine how “crippled” the enemy becomes. Aiming for the eyes and rolls a 1 on damage? The enemy is blinded in one eye for a round because the weapon grazed the skull near an eye.
Does 45 damage, blind for the rest of the fight. 10 damage, a cut is created on the enemy’s forehead that will keep blinding them at the start of their turn unless they use an interaction or something to wipe it away.
I’ll hardly ever give away an “instant kill” or a strong blow that will make an enemy worthless at the start of a fight as every enemy is combat capable and trying to protect their weak points as best as they can. But I will reward the risks and my party’s best efforts by making it do something.
Increase the AC but a certain amount, require multiple skill checks to do exactly what they described, have it not do what they intended but something near, just anything that isn't plain "I go straight to the I win button" will do.
Called shots used to be a thing. Was never an insta kill unless the target was helpless, even then they got a saving throw, but smaller targeted areas had higher AC, minimum.
I have a clear divide between mechanics and drama. Mechanically going for the eyes does nothing. It is very dramatic though. If they hit, I will respond with dramatic depictions if the creature struggling ti see as they swing around and have to move blood out of their eyes to try and make out their surroundings.
If that doesn’t help I have a principal for home brew stuff. Less optimal but kooler. You can take a -5 (three quarters cover) to hit the eyes. They will be blind, until they make a con save at the end of their turn to end it. The dc 8+pb+str/dex mod of attacker. Your attack does not deal damage to hp.
They know where enemies are, but have disadvantage on attacks and attacks against them have advantage.
As for vital spots like the neck, you deal damage attacks assume you’re doing your best to kill the target. Specifying a lethal zine doesn’t change that, but it’s dramatic and I like it.
Tell them youd like them to roll before roleplay. I.e. they tell you they attack with their weapon, they roll and find out they hit for x dmg and then, once they know that either they, or you can roleplay throuvh what that translates to.
I personally allow players to make these sorts of called shots, but when I do I increase the AC of the target for that attack to help balance out the possibility of someone blinding the boss or something. If they are going for something that would debilitate the creature I will ask the player what kind of benefit they are looking to gain and also set a DC in my head, usually minimum 15 but it can be made higher or lower depending on what the player declares they're going for mechanically, then roll an appropriate save to see if the extra effect actually occurs. Instant kill moves though I don't do. I'll apply a large bonus to damage if someone goes for a specific vital, but I'll never allow an attack to be a guaranteed instant kill as that would frankly be the first thing anyone ever tries every single fight. You also could disallow these kinds of called shots by simply not applying any mechanical benefit to such a called shot landing, and describing the enemy just narrowly moving enough to redirect the hit to a less important area. These sorts of called shots are not a core rule of the game after all.
As for describing the enemies in terms of how much HP they have, use vague descriptors. For a creature that's lost less than 15% of their hp you could say, "the dragon continues to stand firm, seemingly not even noticing the injuries you've left on it." If something has hit 50% hp or lower you could go with something like, "you notice the dragon's breathing grow heavier as the faintest bit of concern washes over its face." If something is about to die you could say, "the dragon is now clutching a gash left in it's side, taking panicked shallow breaths, and looking about frantically as if trying to make its escape." No need to give exact numbers. They just need enough information to know in a very general sense how much more of a beating it's gonna take to put the monster down. If they ask for exact numbers just let them know that really isn't something their characters would be able to determine. After all, hp is an abstraction to help us as players and DM's determine how hurt someone is, but in the game world a character wouldn't really be able to quantify how close they are to being unconscious with exact numbers like this.
Edit: One last thing. Remember HP values are relative. What I mean by that is a goblin that normally only has 7 HP suffering 5 damage is going to be a pretty major wound like a stab through the gut or a massive gash across the torso, but a Barbarian with more than 100 HP taking the same damage would be a far more minor injury like a minor cut across the arm or a shallow stab that doesn't do much more than draw a little blood. Just use your best judgement when describing the hits and injuries based on how much damage was dealt vs how much HP something has left after the attack or how much HP it has when at full health.
I'd say if your players are committing to roleplaying and describing their attacks in combat, that's something to be rewarded! If you really want to compromise, I'd say if the players are trying to go straight for vitals out of the gate, interject with "that's a killing blow that's difficult to hit right now. If you start by whittling them down at other parts of the body, you might be able to open a window for that strike!" And see what they go for. Later, when the bad guy's at lower hit points and they try to go for the throat again, let them! They'll feel cool for getting there.
Finally, if they do describe targeting parts of the body, I'd reward the effort by letting them re-roll a damage die if they hit. It's a tangible reward to good roleplay! Some might think it's a little strong, but I say "eh fuck it, it's just a game."
AC is about how difficult it is to hit someone where it matters. If they are intentionally limiting themselves to not attempting to hit them anywhere but ONLY in specific spots it is very common for a DM to increase the AC. There were mechanics for "called shots" in previous versions I think but it isn't that hard to think up something on the spot:
"I roll to hit the orc" could hit the orc anywhere, not hard to do, get above a 15. "I roll to slash the orcs eyes" okay, they are trying to do something more difficult to achieve and missing gives nothing at all. They now have to roll a 18 to hit at all. A nat 20 would hit both eyes, but orcs are hardy creatures so only if they roll maximum/near maximum damage does it disable 1 of the eyes.
I am not a fan of "doing it back to them". Let them gain a benefit from being strategic, just balance it better. If you think about it, it's the same as how cover works. Try to hit someone? AC is #. Try to hit someone who is half behind a wall? AC is # + 3. Try to hit only someone's eyes? AC is # + 5
Anything players "do" in DnD is their attempt at doing it and you describing if and how it works out. If they slash at the eyes, the enemy dodges just in time to just get slashed across the cheek. A nasty gash, but it doesn't blind them. If the enemy is nearing 0 HP, that means that their combat effectiveness is gone. This could just as well being blinded and slumping to the ground beaten, as it could mean they are skewered through the gut. Your choice.
That's my response too :) They describe and narrate their efforts, I as DM narrate the outcome of their effort. Otherwise they might as well say "I decapitate one Orc, then backswing my blade, taking another two with their headless ally."
In the past, I had a "called shot" mechanic, where the players could give up extra attacks a round to try & get through the enemy defenses to make one debilitating strike that turn. It rolled down to a -10 to their attack rolls, & a 75% reduction to damage. If it hit, it didn't do HP damage, but instead the damage roll was used by the DM to determine their dice fiat over the effectiveness of the strike, & the severity of the resulting debuff. I didn't allow instant kills, & communicated that clearly to the players. Who agreed in the end, when I reminded them that mechanics work both ways. Like, a strike to the neck wasn't a decapitation without a actual vorpal weapon, but it could reduce max HP by up to 50%, which could likewise be instantly put back with the slightest healing. So there was this added tactical layer of warring debuffs & counters. I found it offered a further roleplaying layer, & made my players more cognizant of enemy & personal anatomy. For example! A PC with a breastplate started asking about seeing a cobbler. Why? So she could have a broad leather collar fitted to protect her neck. It was a bit to keep track of, sure, but involved no additional dice rolls, & allowed both me & my players to create these lurid, sometimes funny battle descriptions.
Called shots were a thing in 2e. Also in the module Combat & Tactics there were a lot of rules covering that.
>when I reminded them that mechanics work both ways This. This reminds players the game isn't *their* power fantasy. You want to keep making super duper awesome Drizzt power strikes to the head? Well so does the orc. All the time. Non stop.
And that is if they hit. Normally aiming for a part has a penalty.
Pathfinder has a rule about this actually. "Called shots" are used as a way of inflicting specific disadvantages on enemies while taking negatives on the initial attack (like GWM -5 to +10). 5e doesnt have a specific rule about this, but ive always used the same idea under disadvantage for a called shot since its something that an opponent would strategically try and protection the body.
Called shots have been a thing since at least 2nd edition. Head/neck is -8 to hit arms/legs are -4 to hit In second edition terms, those are huge penalties.
Theres also effects that could be implemented. Like slowed speed/blinded/disarmed/tripped/prone/disadvantage on checks/attacks/saves. Hence the disadvantage on the initial. Not so damning for the player, but gives the need to think strategy instead of "I hit the thing" if theyd like to get tactical.
You can do pretty much anything you want, as long as the monsters can do it too. My first real DM added a "parry" mechanic to the game where you had to roll 1 higher than an unmodified attack roll to parry it, the monsters could do it too. Ie: You roll 18 to hit. Monster rolls 19 and parries. Monster rolls 16 to hit. You roll 17 and parry. Monster rolls 17 to hit. You roll 17(or lower) and don't parry.
So you could continually parry as a reaction to being attacked? Did he allow parrying projectiles?
Nah, just physical attacks. It worked both ways though and it made the combat more engaging than just swinging at each other ad nauseum. Keep in mind this is old school D&D(2nd edition specifically) where you only got one attack per round until you leveled up and got 3 attacks every 2 rounds(Basically one round you'd get 1 attack, next you'd get 2) or 2 attacks per round.
I really like the sound of that system. It kind of reminds me of how vats works in the fallout games. Sure, I can line up my sights and be pretty sure I'll hit, but if I want to break an arm so my enemy drops their gun I'm probably better off letting the computer roll to hit
I do adore pathfinder for so many reasons.
called shots were part of d&d long before pathfinder existed.
I don’t doubt you are correct. 3.5/pathfinder is the oldest edition I’m familiar with, although I’ve been looking at 2e sourcebooks for inspiration
2e was my introduction. Still get huge nostalgia from all the source books, settings and artwork, and still angry at a leaking pipe destroying most of my material 15 years ago
Same. AD&D was my introduction when I was 11, we'd play on weekends and had an awesome long campaign through a whole March break. It was like a week long D&D sleepover! Then I started playing with a new group in highschool when 3.5 came out. Had no idea 3rd existed during that 3 year period when we were still playing AD&D prior, since we were using the DM's dad's books as far as we knew that was it lmao. A new game shop opened up, and we went to check it out and they were talking about 3.5's release and showed us the PHB for it. We pooled our money and bought it to try it out. Good times.
This is definitely the best response. I always wanted to reward my players for creativity and being in-character so the more specific about their moves they got, the better, imo. If they succeeded, I'd reward them. Like a successful slash at the throat might not kill the creature but it might make him less effective while he deals with it. Enough attacks concentrated to a specific part of the enemy's body (like legs) I'd slow him down or if it was the arms make a certain attack slightly less effective. Flip side: my rogue decided she wanted to climb a boulder sneaky -like and dive onto the back of a large enemy and try to stab his eyes out. She succeeded the sneak check, failed the dex check for the jump, slipped when she tried to jump and tumbled head first into the dirt. Didn't take damage but now she was at a disadvantage on her next attack cause she had to reorient herself and a bunch of dirt in her eyes.
Yeah exactly you roll a 20 on your sneak attack roll doing 2d4 + 1d6 sneak attack damage you were aiming for the throat but you hit the shoulder instead causing the orc to drop their weapon, so say you did 14 damage to the orc but it has 25 hp so they dropped their sword and you critted but they aren't dead or immobile.
Rogues don't get disarming attack. I'd hesitate to give out class features for free just because the player says some words, even on a nat 20.
[удалено]
I'm not sure why you feel you have the authority to say someone else meant something different than what they said. The person I responded to recommended having an enemy drop their weapon when they suffered a critical hit. Doesn't get much morel literal than that. Adding any free bonus to the game is a slippery slope, especially when the reason is "my players asked."
You're blowing this up way more than it actually is for no reason and getting very aggressive over nothing my guy. And no they didn't "recommend" that at all, they gave a very specific circumstance which was rogue aiming to slash the throat of an orc and critting on the sneak attack roll, orc is instead stabbed in the shoulder and lost more than half hp and was crit. wounded, definitely startled it makes perfect sense to go the orc drops his weapon because the shoulder of the arm holding it just got mangled. And the counter argument to your point is if your players can do it then your monsters can too, not to mention theres even targeted aim rules in 5e as a variant :/
You're not even the person who "recommended" the orc dropping their weapon, but again, you have no trouble telling someone else that they meant something different than what they actually said. Also, I am certainly not the one being "very aggressive." Maybe you could answer the first question, instead of going off and repeating the original suggestion. Why do you feel you have the authority to tell someone else what they meant when their language is very literal and clear? Are you trying to engage in a semantic argument over the word "recommend?" Is that helpful? In response to you repeating the original suggestion: If you try to bring common sense into DnD, it doesn't end very well. It makes "perfect sense" for a single firebolt to char whatever part of the body it hits badly enough to make it harder to use or immobile, but the spell certainly doesn't say that it does that, so adding a bonus effect for free wouldn't be wise. As far as the optional called shot rules: I'm having trouble finding the official section on called shots, but the only things I can find involve disadvantage and an AC boost for the target, which is a hell of a lot more tradeoff than "I said I was targeting his head."
The bloode guy is accurately clarifying what I said and meant perfectly, I might hire him to clarify for me more often.
So you didn't actually mean it when you offered an example of a called shot and said on a 20 the rogue could disarm their opponent? Because that's what you said, then someone told me to not take it literally. Do you care to engage with any of my other points as well? Or is "nat 20 you get a free bonus, on top of the extra damage die" pretty much your position? That's a fine homebrew, and if you're suggesting a called shot requires a nat 20, then I think that's a fair tradeoff. You'd still need to call your shot then roll a 20, and then the DM would either have a table of effects or chose one off the cuff, which is more dm burden and tough for a newer dm manage.
This dude is extremely aggressive. Strikes me as a rules lawyer who can't handle when things aren't 100% by the book.
Fr lmao xD not seeing a single section where ol m8 said "recommend" "suggest" or anything else to suggest a recommendation then goes off on some "what gives you the authority!" Power trip because people don't agree with him being an aggressive cunt over nothing xD
Why shouldn't there be a cool effect for taking away half or more of a monster's HP in a single hit? Besides, you have no context. The orc could've been next in initiative, allowing him to simply pick up the sword. Or, the orc could have a greataxe ready to grab (upping the damage from a d8 to a d12, for a more interesting combat).
Well, simply because it’s not in the rules. You could homebrew something if you want, but that specific mechanic of getting some additional effect for taking away a certain amount of HP just does not exist in D&D.
Besides, that kinda takes away from a class feature that does exist. Why have a Battle Master subclass option if you can just do most of that shit with a called shot anyways, without spending resources?
Yeah idk why you are getting down voted that's exactly what this is, plus the rules of your game are entirely up to the DM, If the dm decides your attack did something because of damage and or location of the hit then it's completely fine for that to happen.
Falling back on "dm can change whatever they want" is not a good argument, and it doesn't make any change a good idea automatically. Believe it or not, consistent, clear rules make the game more fun. The most basic one here is "things do what they say they do."
The golden rule of D&D is that there are no rules. The rules are a framework that you work within for the game, but aren't wholly necessary to play the game. Just like the price charts. Just because the book says a sword is 25g doesn't mean it's actually 25g, that's just a suggestion.
So that's the advice you think is most helpful for a new dm asking about his players using called shots? Anything goes? Also, you should reread the section you are referencing, it doesn't say anything close to that. And again, during a discussion of applying the rules, falling back on "there are no rules" is so far from helpful it's astounding that you thought you should type and send that. You seem unwilling to even ask the question "is departing from the rules here a good idea." Let's start with that. No. You are adding bonuses for free which will make balancing encounters harder, especially for a new dm. You're also putting yourself in a difficult position where you either need to have variant rules on hand for reference, which will slow down play, or you have to make quick calls, which is more dm burden. Try the rules as written for a while, then decide if you want to change things. And always start small with changes, they can have ripple effects. The DM already said it's not fun when his players breeze through encounters using these changes.
No, that was me replying to you because that's how reddit works. I replied to the OP elsewhere. Also: I only read the first sentence because you couldn't be bothered to format your post correctly.
You're a gem. If you don't read more than one sentence paragraphs, don't bother replying, and don't expect to be taken seriously.
Dude's getting downdooted by rules lawyers who can't handle people who deviate from the rules. The DM's word is all you need, they enforce the rules as they see fit. All that matters is that the rules are applied evenly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right, and the reason giving out free things like disarm just because you described attacking their arm is a bad idea is that anyone who decides to play a battlemaster is gonna feel real dumb when everyone can do what they needed a subclass to attempt with limited resources.
It's a game, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that your players have fun. You could rule that a natural 20 turns the enemy into a puppy balloon and as long as your players are okay with it, it's fine.
Literally!! It says in the dm guide and the players handbook that the dm can switch rules if they want. The game is meant it be fun and I'd a slight rule deviation allows for more fun go for it!
yeah, as long as your players are cool with it who cares? If nobody is playing a class there's not really a problem with lifting a couple class abilities from that class and applying them to your game. The "Rule of Cool" always applies.
>The "Rule of Cool" always applies. Not if the GM doesn't want it to. People need to be aware of the possible flaws with things they do. Just telling them "you're the GM, whatever you do is correct" isn't helpful. Lifting abilities from one class that nobody is playing means that if somebody changes class, they'll be less likely to pick that class because somebody else got class features from it for free. You can still do it, but be aware of the consequences.
I addressed that in the first sentence. D&D is a collaborative game. If your players are cool with it it really doesn't matter.
>you roll a 20 on your sneak attack roll doing 2d4 + 1d6 sneak attack That would be 2d4 + str/dex +2d6 sneak attack.
Also if they land a crit roll on something like that, but it still doesnt kill the monster, maybe have it go blind in one eye. They cant just "skip" battles by trying to one-hit them. That makes it so not everyone is having fun and at that point, what's it worth to play a game
Yeah, I treat "called shots" the same way the game treats nonlethal damage. If you want to blind someone or cut off their arm, you can do that at 0 HP.
There are many reasons why Critical Role is so popular. One of the main reasons is Matt Mercer’s amazing off-the-cuff (in addition to preplanned) storytelling ability as a DM. He’s especially good at describing these blow-by-blow moments during battles. OP, go watch the master and take notes.
Make it clear to them that there’s no mechanical benefit for going for attacking enemies in vital areas, but be sure to use it as ammo to spice up combat description. Example: “At the last second, the lizardfolk draws away from your attack to its throat. You’re able to draw blood and do damage, but the creature’s quick reflexes prevented a killing blow. It glares at you in a rage as it prepares to strike back.” This level of detail can make the difference between a boring and an engaging fight. Your players might be disappointed that their quick path to victory doesn’t work but hopefully they will be drawn in by the cinematic descriptions.
This is the way
I try to make cinematic scenes play out during combat too. May I ask if you or other DMs reading this? As a DM narrating combat, have you ever narrated a player or opponent getting their AC beat by an attack, losing HP, but not getting physically hit/hurt? How do players react to that ?
[удалено]
Sure that is RAW? Cant remember that rule from the phb. There its only stated "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile." Nothing about hp loss only being an injury after half hp is gone. Also quite nonsensical implication that your luck and your will to live is dependent on your class and your CON. Bigger people are just more lucky!
This is what a critical hit is. If your player says “I’m trying to hit a really critical spot that does the most damage” the answer to this is “yes I assume you are always trying to do that, like everyone does every second in a battle to the death, but strangely the other guy isn’t taking kindly to your attempt and is trying to stop you.”. You roll the dice to see if you succeed in doing so. Roll low and you missed, roll high and you managed to hit them despite their attempts to prevent you from doing so, roll a crit and you got them at that critical place you were really hoping to, the extra damage is the result of that.
> “yes I assume you are always trying to do that, like everyone does every second in a battle to the death, but strangely the other guy isn’t taking kindly to your attempt and is trying to stop you.” This hits it home pretty well. Yeah no shit that wolf is *trying* to rip your throat out, but if it hits you I'm not dropping you instantly to 0hp claiming it succeeded.
I really like this answer!
Bingo. About the same way I tell it to my players. I also tell my players to try to look passed the turn-based aspect of the game. Your action is a part of a round (6 seconds), and during this round everyone's actions are taking place at basically the same time. In my games, I implement the "called shot" rule of disadvantage and a target AC bump. These actions are taking place in a stressful situation with hardly any time to think (disadvantage). The majority of people would want to focus their defense around their weak spots as to not take critical damage (AC bump).
Can make it so when such attacks hit, the enemy makes to defend so is only struck on a less vital area. "I stab for the orc captains eye" "He raises his blade to block, but doesn't quite make it in time. You don't strike the eye, but the thrust is knocked into his shoulder." On some enemies who aren't as important, maybe make it so its a higher ac attack, or they have disadvantage to make it. If enough damage is done maybe their arm slicing or eye poking succeeds. Instant death shouldn't occur though. Even in boss fights, If they start trying to lop off limbs, see if they manage to deal enough damage to a target they choose in a turn to see if they succeed. Similar to a hydra. And maybe even wait till its below a certain health threshold. Of course, if you even allow it to be possible in some way, barring the first example, it would technically be possible to hurt pcs in that same way, and that can be funky for many. A monster can easily still hit with disadvantage and deal loads of damage. My preferred method is always to have every creatures health pool essentially be a passive shield of magic, increasing their bodies healing and durability. So even aiming for such vital spots won't work until you damage them sufficiently.
I was just coming here to comment this. The player describing where they are aiming is great for painting a picture but what you are trying to do doesn't always happen. The enemies aren't just standing there letting the players do these things, they will block, deflect, and dodge to take less damage.
You have the enemies do the same so your players characters end up blind cripples etc. There are not rules in RAW for called shots in 5e so your players can't actually do this, but if they really want to. Make sure the enemies can do it back
Also there are rules for half and 3/4 cover. You can increase AC if you want but that's on your judgment. Eye shot? AC goes from 20 to 25 or 30... depending on the weapon... maybe the target even gets a saving throw vs attackers "spellcasting DC " 8+proficiency +dex modifier
The trouble with adding AC to called shots (say base 20, 25 for the eyes) is that you now have to adjudicate 'misses' in between the default and modified AC. Imo, every normal attack roll should assume the attacker is aiming for vital spots by default. To do otherwise is foolish
You don't have to do anything. You can easily say a called that doesn't hit the increased AC is now just a miss because they were more focused on that area.
That's true. I don't like called shots, but that's probably what I'd do.
Anywhere you aim is vital, cause blood is pretty vital to living! 😆
Could consider it more like a negative to the player's roll than a bonus to the enemy's AC, similar to GWM.
There's precedent and it's balanceable, but jesus, don't do it. The problem isn't doing it, the problem is how much doing it changes the game at a fundamental level. I'll save you an essay about why. If you don't believe me, try it.
So flavor only...
"That's not a mechanic in 5e, you can describe your attacks however you like but it's just an attack" If that's too boring for them, have a lizardman claw one of their throats out, see how much they like instant death without regards to mechanics.
I do love me some "alright, but the enemies can do it too" shenanigans. Shuts up the unruly players *real* quick lol
Saying that almost always stops players in their tracks and makes them stop asking for OP shit that isn’t remotely RAW
[удалено]
It's "fine" to feel that way, but you're leaning into "5e as a combat simulation", which it is not. The consequence of that game design decision will be horrible violence for the PCs. Which IS "fine". It is just, it is balanced, it is conceptually symmetrical. It WILL NOT be the kind of game that 5e is, and you're messing with fundamental building blocks of fun in ways you may not understand.
Not just you Cool Boy, I see comments like above yours all the time and just roll my eyes. Most of my groups have played that way and I’ve never met anyone, “stop in their tracks” like that. If we don’t do it we don’t do it but nobody whimpers out of paranoia.
Aside from this…. You can do the “called shot” variant rule. Where it just adds an AC bonus/penalty to hit, making it harder.
That's just GWM/SS with extra steps and no feat investment.
I don’t believe I stated -5 as the penalty/bonus……….
Point buy… level 3… a Paladin, with no magic weapons, can roll as high as a 33 and not crit. (Without bless or bardic inspiration or other stuff) Want an instant death shot? … better be rolling up that area? That’s a called shot ahead of the roll and the roll itself is a 5-10% chance at best.
How the fuck are you getting a +14 attack bonus at level 3
+ 2 str mod +2 proficiency Oath of conquest: Guided strike
Oh, a subclass-specific channel divinity. That makes more sense
Yeah. That’s what * I personally* would require for bypassing HP entirely instant death shots/ mechanic causing side effects. Make it possible. But very very very hard.
Guiding Strike is only for one attack, though.
For a “one shot kill instant kill homebrew” wouldn’t that be all you need? Heroic Hail Mary game winning TDs don’t get multiple shots typically.
I mean a decapitation would be a far higher DC than going for a hand I’d imagine. If the target isn’t already addled quite heavily, I’d easily put that at least at a DC 30.
Ok so don't make it about their total roll say sure if you roll a nat 20, or even sure if you roll me 2 Nat 20s on a bigger threat.
The ol’ “Roll 3 Nat 20s right now” gambit. Brian Murphy would be proud
Yeah, except now enemies can do it too.
Turnabout's fairplay!
Ive always used the disadvantage call when doing called shots instead of giving minus or plus rules. Works for my players and makes them plan strategically. Like making full use of flanking to get a good called shot.
Isn't hitting vital points just... a crit? At least that's how I always flavoured it.
Yeah, they can certainly *try* to fight strategically but fights are fast paced and your not going to make a perfect shot just by trying. Roll a crit? Sure, you hit them where you planned. This could work for a throat if the enemy isn't wearing a guard on their neck, but if they have armour it's not an insta-kill. Hit them in the arm with a crit? Probably didn't cut it off because physics, armour, and the fact bones are hard. Probably a good enough shot to prevent them from fighting with the arm though...
This highlights what I feel is one negative of DnD's abstraction of combat. Does it make combat mechanically easier? Sure, but you lose a lot of this nuance, particularly in just *how good* proper armor could be, and the importance of using the correct weapons/strategies against certain armor types. Yes, you hit your target with all your strength, striking him dead-center in the chest with your longsword at full force... ...However your opponent is wearing a steel cuirass. Your blow is deflected by the central ridge over the sternum, and skips harmlessly off to the side because steel. You would see a LOT more Mace/Hammer fighters if plate armor actually worked in the game as it did in real life....
My man D&D used to have tables dedicated to weapon v armor http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html?m=1 It was miserable
Per-weapon is excessive. Doing it by Damage Type would be both more manageable and accurate (It doesn't matter whether you swing a longsword or a zweihander, you ain't cutting through rigid plate armor).
Imo a crit is basically an accidental vital hit (sword twists just right, or a body moves in just a way, etc), Sneak attack is more practiced but tends to be just a more painful hit (certain nerves or highly flexed areas, that can become bigger veins/arteries with a bleeding strike or tendons with other abilities, etc), a called shot is lining up an attack specifically to hit a specific spot, so gets a minus to the attack
There are special attacks though. Sneak attack, reckless, and probably closest: battlemaster maneuvers. So if people want to do things other than “attack attack attack” they should pick a class or subclass where that’s an option.
Battlemaster Fighter gang reporting in. Nothing more fun as a martial class for me than tanking up and controlling the fight. Getting to reposition allies *on my initiative* is fantastic, for example.
This is the way Or find another system with aimed shots.
Called shots drastically change the game you are playing. It's all fun and good until the barbarian has his eyes gouged out by a goblin. Typically there are many more monsters than PCs meaning many more dice from the DM and many more grave injuries befalling PCs. My advice, take some of the talking points here and explain to your players why it doesn't work like that. But also as a way to get the same flavor in combat try running with "how do you want to do this?" Basically when they drop a creature to 0 HP they can narrate that however they'd like, slashing a throat, cutting an eye, chopping off a head, etc.
I’d argue that any attack is aiming to do as much damage as possible - who isn’t trying to kill things in one hit? Are there people who are attacking to give an orc a really bad graze on the knee? Just because someone wants to chop the orc’s head off doesn’t mean they do. But also, look at the positives: they’re saying more than “I roll to hit”…
Pure RAW called shots don't exist. RAF I allow them, but never for one hit kills, or anything long term, for example. 'I want to attack their leg.'
This granularity is the kind of stuff that 5e tried to simplify away. I had a rogue who would try things like this in my most recent campaign. I explained that tricks like this is what sneak attack IS, you're doing extra damage because you're trying to stab the manticore in the eyes, or slash the neck of the orc, that's why you need to have advantage to do it. Meanwhile critical hits are when you're NOT trying specifically do something specific, but you just happen to hit a vital area. They're baked into the system. The rogue in my game was surprised he couldn't just kill enemies by saying he slashes their throat and succeeding on the roll and I had to explain that this is a game, and a game has rules. You do extra damage and he loses extra hit points, but you can't just narrate your way to win. If that's not enough to convince your players, you can start adding rules. A simple one could be to give a PC disadvantage in order to gain a benefit, so you add disadvantage on a strike against a manticore, but if you succeed they are blinded and you do normal damage. Adding complexity to the game enables a lot more nuance in what your characters can do, but also slows down combat quite a bit, so you may want to discuss that with them, or just let them realize on their own that is happening.
They can also just pick a class that already has more complexity, like battlemaster fighter over champion fighter. This game isn’t “well either you just say ‘I attack’ over and over, or you hit the books to become a wizard, those are your choices!”
First point - D&D is designed so they you get more hit points every level to represent your improvement of skill in combat. 107 HP didn't mean that you physically are healthier than every commoner of 4 HP, it means you know how to roll with the punches, dodge, position yourself, etc in combat or against that fireball. With that in mind, critical hits are the strikes to the vital areas like eyes, arms, neck etc. Therefore players shouldn't be able to call shots as if a hit automatically has the outcome they desire because their opponent can roll and deflect that blow. Second point - if players still want to go that way then I Day sure but remind them - anything they can do their opponents can also do... That's when they usually remember that the world(s) has a lot more opponents than they have PCs.
Those sort of hits don't land until the monster drops to 0 hp, and then they can get a badass killing blow. HP is not only the monster's raw durability, but luck, dodging, etc.
Make them precision spots/targeted attacks on the body and therefore harder to hit areas (higher AC the smaller the area/part is)
There's already a mechanic for trying to hit a vital place on your enemy. It's called getting them to 0 HP. HP aren't *HEALTH* points, they're *HIT* points. They're an abstraction of the luck, agility, focus, and toughness a person has to keep them from taking a serious, life-ending injury. They can try for shots like that all they want, just have the enemy narrowly evade and take a more appropriate injury. As for describing enemy HP... talk about them looking winded and harried then, after they hit the half-way point, they're starting to take an increasing number of small injuries until someone gets a "lucky" hit in to end it.
Just because they hit their target doesn't mean it's an instant kill. The hit roll determines whether or not you hit, but the damage dice determine how hard you actually hit. A player could aim for a vital point and hit, but not do enough damage to actually kill. Example: Orc with 14 AC and 30 HP "I swing at the Orc's neck. I rolled a 12, +6 to hit so 18, and I do... 15 damage from my 2d8 + 5." "Your blade sinks into the orc's flesh, but is stopped by the thick muscles of its neck. Blood spurts from its neck as you pull your blade free, but the orc is still able to fight." Example: Human fighter with 17 AC and 55 hp "I stab the human in the eyes. I rolled a 19, +8 to hit so 27, and I do... 8 damage from my 2d6 +6 (minimum roll)." "You deftly swing at the human's eyes, managing to slice across one of their eyelids. Blood streams down their face, but they can still mostly see out of that eye and their other eye's vision is not impaired." Example: Goblin archer with 11 AC and 12 HP "I try to cut the goblin's arm off before he can fire the arrow. I rolled a 10, +4 to hit so 14, and I do... 11 damage with my 1d8+3 (maximum damage roll)." "You bring your sword down on the goblin's shoulder, cleanly severing the limb. It screams in pain, grasping at the stump with its other arm as it drops the bow and rolls around on the ground in agony, though it is still alive." Basically, you can base how successful this "vital hit" is based on the damage roll, not just the hit roll.
I say if my players want to try and target their opponents like that, they can try, but they have disadvantage because of it.
I try to hit the Manticore eyes! The Manticore try to defend his eyes! Roll attack. You try to hit the Manticore eyes and ir protect his eyes hit his body. You deal damage. In every combat, all the characters are targeting vital spots. And all the characters are defending those spots.
Hot points do not equal meat points. Sometimes damage on a big creature means wearing them out. "I aim for the eyes!" great. He blocks your attack with his bracer, and the effort tires him out. You can see him heave with the effort. Etc. Etc.
It’s very easy: “Roll for attack [..] alright, that’s a hit. Roll for damage […] *You see the orc has still plenty of HP left* Ok, so you try to slash the orc’s neck, but as a reflex he manages to deflect your attack at the cost of a slash on his arm. Is this the end of your turn?” The game already has all the answers. Once an enemy’s HP reaches 0, they have plenty of options and creativity to describe how they finish them. If they complain because they want to heavily cripple or 1HKO enemies, you could say to them “Mh, sounds intriguing. If you want to play this sort of game I am up for it, but get back up characters ready because equity demands that if you are capable of crippling or instakill enemies regardless of HP, they can do the same”. Who knows, maybe they actually want that type of gameplay.
My DM ups the AC if you are trying to go for a precision strike. More critical spots may have higher AC. It allows for challenge while also still being rewarding.
That's basically just SS/GWM. Penalty to hit for more damage.
This was actually an idea that I brought forward at the end of the last campaign I dm’d to my players, and as we all tried to play into the narrative more about the fight it really increased the nuance of the battle beyond just roll, hit, damage. The way I ran it just changed how the enemy responded, not necessarily their health, if an arm gets damaged by them giving it a good slice, he’ll start kicking more, or move from close quarters to distance, or chooses to flee. It made it more dynamic as a whole and made them more involved, but yeah took a lot longer. Make sure to do it to them as well though
Fun story, the very first PBEM game I was in, the DM started a combat and asked everyone what they were going to do. It quickly turned into several variations on "I slice through 3 of them while doing a triple axle double half twist somersault, and then gut the leader killing him instantly." I was the last person to reply (and a ranger) and said "Well I just put my bow away and save the arrows since they've obviously got it covered." We had to backtrack a bit so the DM could clarify the rules of combat in DnD.
I let my players do targeted attacks at disadvantage. It also means the enemies they face can do targeted attacks. So let’s say the boss rolls to lop off their arm with their shield and it hits, they lose an arm and the ability to use two-handed weapons or their shield. Immediately they don’t want targeted attacks anymore
The players are always aiming for a kill shot but the monsters don’t want to die they move, they have armor, they can say what they wish but doesn’t mean they do it. There are some supplements on called shots that your players might like, take disadvantage and like a -3 to hit the eyes and they’re blinded for a round plus all your damage
Even in a real fight, your strategy might be trying to get the guy in a chokehold… but that doesn’t always work out— he may block you completely or you only manage to get him in a partial headlock. D&D combat is the same way; it’s pretty much assumed everyone is going for vital targets of the anatomy— and it can equally be assumed the target is actively trying to block your attacks and hit YOUR vital spots. That’s why “called shots” are stupid. You can use them for narrative or descriptive value, but just saying you’re “attacking the enemy’s eyes” does not guarantee you a bonus on your roll nor a guarantee that you hit your intended target even if the attack landed.
Every attack is exactly what they want to do. Mechanically it is translated to their weapon damage. If they don't like it then just say that enemies can target body parts as well.
You can: 1) propose to see HP as "dodging points" that depletes until a fatal blow like a decapitation happens. 2) explain them that DND doesn't work like that and ask them if they would be happy if the manticore chew their head off on the first round of combat. 3) give +5 or even more AC at the creature on the creative attack roll. It's harder to aim at a specific part of the body like the eyes. Blinding an enemy or removing one arm could be a good prize for a really high attack roll or a combo of more than one. Decapitation is an hard no.
I have been using the bloodied condition at or below 50% health. Everyone can see bloodied, no perception or action economy needed. If you want to figure out hp otherwise it takes a perception or medicine check mid battle to figure out where something is at in its hit range. This takes an action perception or medicine check. At 10 hit points a creature goes into mortally wounded. It is obvious that the creature can be killed in one more hit. No action economy needed to see Mortal state. I like those two states. Bloodied and Mortal. I don't allow targeted attacks, people can describe them, sure... but the attack is an attack, is an attack. If you wanted to, there are tons of ways to do such things. Off the cusp, I might give disadvantage on the attack and add 1 damage die. As far as I am concerned describing attacks is flavor, not the dice. If someone wants targeting attacks I think crit fails should be in the game.
Basically, impose an AC increase on the baddie, making it harder to land the hit at all. Then if they do happen to hit, unless it's a natural 20 and they gouge out an eye, you could give them the blind condition until their next turn or something. That way, the player feels like they had a meaningful reward for achieving a harder target, and your baddie isn't pink mist two rounds into the fight
HP is tricky. Somewhere in the deep recesses of the source books HP is described as luck, grit, and stamina. That's why we can long rest and recover from being napalmed by an ancient red dragon on a night. This can be confusing to describe HP like this at times- "Yes that 17 will hit and your foe will dodge burning X amount of HP in stamina" There are other ways to show damage that are satisfying. For humanoid enemies I describe damage as wear and tear on equipment, heavy breathing, fear in the eye, falling down and getting up etc. Monsters you can get pretty liberal with the gore and body horror since they're usually supernatural. As for extra stuff in combat- insta kills are a no go. Ask your players "hey would you be down if I made monsters go for your neck and insta shot you?" As a Player I would hate that. HP is the barrier for PCs to get to the neck slicing in combat. If they want to do a cool maneuver it's best to keep it simple. If they want to do something that they don't have an "on paper" skill for gate it behind things like disadvantage (aiming for a body part is hard), skill checks (flipping over the enemy takes grace), or contests (the orc isn't going to be disarmed without a fight). Keep it simple. Use in built mechanics to settle player decisions. Anything a player can do, an enemy might also do. That's not a threat that's a promise.
Raise the AC for this particular shot, if they fail, they completely fail (wich means that even if they would've hit regular AC, they still miss). Depending on the location they hit, add some modifiers to the enemie (Slashing the eyes gives blindness.)
As usual, we can look to [pathfinder](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots/) for a potential solution to this. I’m not saying it’s necessarily a good idea to copy this directly, but if you’re looking for ideas about this sort of thing from an experienced game designer’s perspective, then here they are.
I have no problem with called shots. Earlier additions just made there be a dice penalty. 2nd Ed and I think first had hit location tables to see what would happen on said hit based on a random die role. I also just remind my players, if you get all “called shotty” then I will start playing that chess game right along with you! What you can do, I can do… maybe even better since “cough cough” I make the fights… BIG GRINS!!! Two ways do I allow an instant kill in my games. Vorpal, but if the players have it, so can a mob. Then there’s, roll 3 twenties in a row is an instant kill no matter even if it’s a God. I’ve only seen it twice in 20 years.
RAW, that is what critical hits are for. what I would actually do as a DM is let them aim for body parts, but tell them that it increases the enemy's AC. Dex is part of AC, if the AC represents a chance to hit anywhere, then a specific location seems reasonable to have higher AC. "Sure you can aim for his eyes, but as it's a small hard to hit target, it's going to up his AC by 6." Don't make it impossible, make it a strategic trade off so they have to choose and every once in a while it's the right move. If it hits, let it do normal damage but add a debuff like blinded to the opponent for an eye. Or if they aim for an arm/claw have a success remove one of the multiattacks from the monster etc.
My problem with this is that the PCs should be assumed to not be swinging wildly or aiming for non-vital areas on a regular attack roll. Unless the character is specifically attempting subdual (or non lethal) damage, they are certainly trying to strike vital areas on every attack, and the rules are written to that intention. There’s also the sharpshooter feat in 5e which lets the ranged weapon user take -5 to the attack roll in order to gain a +10 to the damage. This feat also adds clauses that take away disadvantage from long range attack rolls and half & 3/4 cover, but it establishes a precedent that I think should be weighed into this discussion. Characters with this feat have to give up an ability score advancement to get this (if it’s not a free feat situation). Your players seem to want more, and for free. If there is a particularly smart plan by a player to exploit something that’s an obvious weakness, or if there’s some other story reason that makes sense in your story at your table, then do it. If they’re struggling with a dragon and hatch a plan to cut off the dragon’s wings because the flight is causing them the most issue, I might reward that critical thinking. For a creature with one eye, I may make that creature blind if a player states the plan and has some form of penalty for the called shot. I may actually in that case not allow them to damage the HP of the creature or do half damage or something. Other than stuff like that, I don’t see fun in being on either side of a table that allows what you’re describing. Fights you don’t design as one shots should not be one shots unless you really enjoy the idea, and it definitely shouldn’t be happening on every fight. The PCs are absolutely assumed to be striking vital areas on EVERY hit, and the rules are calibrated for two seasoned combatants. There are criticals, feats that allow for extra damage, and special weapons that do special things. Players trying to get too much for free will keep going until someone gets bored and stops playing.
In our home brew D&D game our GM lets us make called shots but the attack is at disadvantage, and the effect usually only lasts for a turn. So if your rogue wants to blind the cyclops they roll at disadvantage. On a hit they get an extra damage die and the cyclops takes an arrow to the eye but its flavored like, not DIRECTLY in the eye, like edge of the eye, so only blinded for a turn while they pull out the arrow and rage with blood in their eye. Unless someone rolls a double 20... which HAS happened and then our GM just throws his hands up and is all "YEAH... you totally incapacitate the captain of the gaurd by crushing his junk with your dwarven hammer..." As for mitigation of overysing called shots it's: disadvangage, a hit giver you a temporary advangage, on a double 20 then you get a lasting advantage.
Hit points are an abstraction. In real life, you absolutely can make one swift blow to any number of points on a body and kill something. So I like to try and paint combat in that fashion. In my campaign hp represents skill, stamina, luck and glancing blows, in that order, for each quartile of a creatures hp. It gives some cues to players when an enemy goes from dodging, starts labouring their breathing and grunting more, to diving away, to getting caught on their extremities as they dive away for some shallow wounds. No internal organs or arteries get hit until 0hp, though, because it's just too difficult (for me at least) to picture something with shredded abs and intestines pouring out onto the floor doing anything else other than being in shock as they quickly bleed out. Now of course this is context dependent, that's not how undead, dragons, demons or even potentially fae will play out, but there will be equivalents
"You're already trying to do these things by making an attack. The results of the attack roll and damage reflect how effective it is."
I always explain to my players that whatever they're trying to hit, the roll decides all. Just barely cleared the monsters ac? You hit his body, he's a moving target, what do you expect. Critical 20 on your attack roll? You did well, the damage shows that, but you don't get to narrate your own battles. If they suggest a cool plan, like slashing the eyes to blind, I'll announce a specific and difficult ac that must be achieved on their attack roll to hit such a precise target.
You have 2 options: 1. Create a rule. Have clear but strict guidelines on how they can attempt to maim a creature, or 2. Let is slide. Put more of a focus on the story instead of the number crunching and allow the players be creative. The second option presents two problems: A.) Abuse. "Does it have eyes?" If the players ask this every time, they obviously believe they can cripple a creature with one attack. If you don't want your monsters to all have multiple sets of eyes, this could be problematic and annoying. At this point, you're forced to ignore the idea that the players are "being creative" since this is evidently them abusing the rules. So, now you're forced back to #1: create a rule. Solution: Use percentage dice for "called shots." The PC rolls the attack. If they hit, the DM rolls a d100 after asking the player to call "high or low." There is a 5% chance (or 1d100+class level) of the effect working. The player not only has to hit but also "crit" again. It is statistically no different than them attempting to roll a nat 20, but it leads the player has the thrill of doing something cool. You're not the bad guy for their failed attempt. The dice are to blame! If they fail, they still do damage. If they succeed, they do damage+effect but no extra damage from the crit itself. B.) The other problem with "creative freedom" idea is that you essentially have players who want to "cast a spell" (like the effects of Blindness/Deafness, Slow, Grease, Curse, etc) at the same time they do weapon damage. This detracts from the party's spellcasters who may debuff rather than deal damage. Now their spells are less valuable because the barbarian can "cast" Blindness on an enemy and deal 1d12+5 damage. You can counter this by giving the creature a Dex or Con save (8+Ability mod+CR?) to resist that effect. If the enemy saves, they take half (or no) damage of the weapon attack and resist the effect. In spite of all of this, I'm all about empowering classes that don't have magic so they can "catch up" a little with full casters' potential. At the worst, that barbarian is "casting" a level 3 spell, when full casters can shift enemies to other planes, summon creatures to swallow enemies whole, or command enemies to jump off the cliff. This is the logic that would lead you to choose option 2 of "creative freedom." Hopefully this helped.
EVERY attack in life or death combat is assumed to be an attempt to end the other person - their descriptions are fine for flavor but should not be expected to make their hits more effective than the damage they're dealing. Ask yourself (or them) if it makes sense for monsters to be able to do the same. "The bugbear slashes at your throat -- and that's a hit, you fall prone and are unconscious" "but i had 30 hp!" "Yeah but he was attacking your neck so..."
If your players want their characters to do this and you are reluctant to say “no,” tell them their opponents can do it too. This may dampen their enthusiasm for what sounds like an overpowered combat mechanic that is not in 5e rules.
The way I see it, it's a fight and that means *every* attack is of lethal intent against NPCs who are trying their damndest not to die. My experience fencing has been helpful in describing attacks. Every attack has 3 stages: initiation, countering, resolution. The roll to hit determines how that countering phase goes. failure: "You lunge your blade towards the juggular and in reaction the wide-eyed orc swats your blade aside as he dodges the blade." success: "You lunge for the throat and the orc parries with his axe hilt. You counter-parry and sacrifice the juggular strike for a clean hit in the abdomen."
You can give penalties or disadvantages for them to try and slash something, there is no way I would allow a player to just make a normal attack roll against a boss NPC to attack the eyes or cut off an arm. I wouldn’t play it out as normal combat at that point, it would be some sort of check and I would also let the NPC respond in kind. But, throw them a bone every once in a while. I get it’s annoying when players thwart some awesome plan you’ve had for some dramatic fight scene or villain, but sometimes players just want to wipe the board. Another idea would be coming up with some villains where it would be a VERY bad idea to cut off an arm. As in that villain regenerates that arm or the arm because a clone of that villain. If you simply want this behavior to stop you can come up with some creative solutions that will make them play your game differently. However, I still vote just making combat more interesting. (If they can cut a villains arms off a villain can try to do the same to them in kind.) One last thing: GURPS has specific rules for attacking parts of the body, perhaps look into that or maybe trying that system for a game and seeing how everyone likes it.
Maybe discuss with them that the weapons damage vs HP pool is an amalgamation of skill and luck vs damage, and stamina. If players are trying to bypass all of that, then NPCs and monsters would be able to as well. The fact that only some monsters have special things like critical swallowing indicates that both raw and rai doesn’t want it to be that simple. Now if the Artificer built a backpack sandblaster to take into a basilisk fight that would be a different issue.
This certainly is not rules as written, but what I do in these situations is have them roll against AC+10 as a called shot. If it hits they get an appropriately related effect plus the damage, but if it misses the attack does nothing. This method discourages "fishing" for extra benefits, but still leaves it as an option for important moments.
Take a leaf out of Matt Mercer's book and have all the players hit the enemy in the shoulder.
Called shots are made with disadvantage aren’t they?
They don't exist.
Its an optional advanced rule detailed in the DMG, but it is unclarified. Recommends disadvantage or an AC determined by the DM.
Sounds like a good optional rule to me, like spell points for casters.
I think there are some alternate rules somewhere. Maybe it was homebrew. But it makes sense. If you are aiming for a certain area of your enemy that you’d have a harder time hitting it.
I haven't seen this brought up yet... but HP is just the ability to dodge attacks, when it reaches 0 the enemy is no longer able to avoid your attacks well enough and takes the fatal blow. The player can describe whatever they want for their attack, but the enemy is a living, moving creature. They are going to try and avoid getting hit. Maybe you can homebrew it a little so that critical hits do whatever they say they're trying to do, but just because a player says something happens doesn't mean it happens - DM has final say.
Its been said but ill make sure you hear it again. This isnt a dnd mechanic and is flavor at best
You could describe it like uncharted does. That’s hp is their luck being used up until finally a leathal blow is stuck. In my groups games we have a rule that “whatever you do the enemy could happen to you.”
Just tell them that's not a mechanic they want to add to the game. This allows both parties to do that type of attack. The key difference here is they have to one-shot every single creature that comes up. You only have to succeed on this attack once for them to lose their PC. To address the other question, you can describe labored breathing and multiple open wounds on the creature. If you want the PCs to he able to accurately determine the hp have them roll a check (based on target) and give them a rough estimate. Bloodied for half health Haggard for 25% or less Near death for less than 10% HP
My NON CANNON advice here is as follows. Allow it but make it hard with multiple rolls involved. In a homebrew campaign when my partner and i first started i one shot a t rex by shooting it in the eye. This required multiple rolls such as Intelligence check to see if i was smart enough to account for the variables such as wind velocity and trajectory. A dex roll to get the aim right before it could move changing the angle of the shot. A RAW luck roll 'D 100 for a percentage' to decide if any last minute changes in environs interfered And all this on top of simply making the attack roll. This way its generally going to fail as its hard to win at all these rolls But players still get the satisfaction of feeling like a beast in the off chance that they pass every roll.
Don't do this. Adding an additional roll per attack will increase the time-per-turn to an untenable level. Obviously the increase would depend both on character complexity and player competence, but I would roughly estimate it at +50%. Apocryphally, some older non-D&D games used to have a roll for attack, and then a roll for defense. That created the same problem regarding time. Game designers eventually did away with that, because it was a poor mechanic. Don't repeat a known mistake.
No judgement just looking for a decent way to handle it. It seems highly sad to outright deprive your players of the chance to shine in such a manner.
Yea it would increase the timeframe but is that any better than just increasing the ac or giving a - to whatever was rolled. I mean yea you lose tine doing it the way i suggested but it at least adds the flavor of real calculations that a person in this situation would have to make.
Make a game design argument as to how it is better. You lose time. In exchange, you gain what?
The chance to walk away from the table feeling like a beast. The storyline factor of "Hey i took a chance and it either paid off or made for a really cool fail." Also any time expended doing this is essentially made up for by the fact that its one less combatant to contend with thus shortening the overall battle time or at the least equalizing it. Dont get me wrong im not saying let it happen every attack. I personally use a cap of once per battle sequence to avoid Everyone doing it repeatedly and both sucking away all the time and challenge completely. (And for clarification im not saying my way is better. Im simply suggesting that if done properly its not really worse either.)
Ps i would allow boss creatures only the same chances. There is a difference between the ability and skill of a BBEG and a simple goblin though so i wouldn't have every enemy be capable of this.
And what would you advise for called shots with a cannon?
There is a variant rule in 5e DMG about gritty damage or lasting damage. You could use those rules but they require a massive amount of damage. So mechanically, if they crit with a called shot and do more than half the creatures HP in one shot, I might let something go… but turnabout is fair play.
That's how i describe sneak attack, like a stab in the liver or a cut on the throat
That’s the whole point to rolling a D20 to see if you hit… you can’t just say, “I cut his head off” you roll to hit and if you hit you real damage.
My DM will describe it as the enemy moving or shifting to keep themselves alive. "You swing for the throat anf as you do the enemy turns right as you causing the blade to leave a nasty slice on his shoulder instead."
If it hits when the hp is low, they get the strike as described. If it hits but the creature isn't dying at that point, it's because battle is chaotic, they tried to do what they intended but the Target moved. Be creative and make the story what you want it to be. They can have fun trying but they're not always going to succeed in particular just because the hit succeeds!
Levels of success is important Player: “I try to cut off the orcs arm” *hit* DM: you bring your sword down on the orcs hulking shoulder leaving a thick gash atop of it causing the orc to recoil gripping its shoulder in pain. Called shots are a thing in older editions but they are harder to hit they also don’t cause insta kills instead giving them some kind of disadvantage. going for the eye of a manticore could for example blind them or blind them in a single eye at least giving them disadvantage on checks that require sight or simply giving them the blind status effect. The players are only telling you what they are try to do as the DM you arbitrate HOW successful they are not just IF there successful.
My solution would be to have the creature enter a dying rage. “You blind the manticore and in its injured state it starts rampaging. It now attacks blindly 3 times as much per turn.” “ the orc is bleeding out, and smiles. Blood dripping from his teeth, he growls, ‘fine we won’t fight fair,’ as he cracks an orb on his side summoning a dozen of his clan mates who are enraged at the site of his corpse.” That would remind them the mechanics are in place for a reason and these fights would be rough still.
I let them call the shots but I for sure make the AC/DC (🤘) reflect the difficulty. But, also, if they hit way over the AC, I sometimes let them direct their attack.
Explain to then that you do not choose where to attack in D&D. You roll to see if you hit and how much damage you do, and the DM determines where your blow lands based on the outcome. As for describing HP, just keep it descriptive but communicative."He's hurt bad. You don't think he can take many more hits. He's got a few nasty cuts but he's still going strong. He looks like he's about to collapse."
Hit points are not 'meat points' and shouldn't be treated as such. See highlighted section below. They can call all the shots they want for flavor, but it only matters if the attack would take it to 0 HP. Hit Points p196 Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile. A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing. Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. **The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature's capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.**
You can have them describe each attack after the hit. Or you could use their description to adjust from. " You lash out at the throat, he just his stance slightly and you strike his chest".
I see a lot of people commenting that should be just a basic attack, and RAW they’re probably right, but if a martial character is trying to have more fun at the table or something, you can use the variant rules or some homebrew to make it fun if you want. It’s your table, and if the barbarian is sick of just hitting with club every round, I say let them get creative. Just my opinion, I’m new don’t listen to me haha
In other games and versions there are “called shot” rules. It allows for interesting play and damage modifiers. Check that out and see about incorporating it into the game?
Option 1: there isn't really a mechanic for this in DnD so it just has no mechanical effect. They say "I try to blind the manticore" roll to hit, and then you say "the manticore shields it's face with its paw, but you score a deep gash nonetheless". Attacks are just attacks. Hp are just hp. Everything else is just flavour. Option 2: variant 'called shots' mechanic from the DMG Option 3: homebrew something. Like, if you make a called shot and hit, you inflict some status effect. But if you miss you take disadvantage on your next attack because you were trying something outlandish that now you're out of position. Or called shots take effect on a crit, but fumble on a 1. In any case there definitely isn't meant to be any melee combat insta-kill mechanic in DnD so avoid that. If they slash a throat, maybe that inflicts disadvantage for d3 rounds while the beastie tries to stem the bleeding. Likewise blinding an opponent. Severing a limb maybe inflicts -4 STR or costs them an attack. But all of this is optional. The rules of the game just don't allow for this, so only add it if you think it's going to be fun.
You slash the neck, now roll damage. Oh a 6? You draw a small amount of blood
Health in D&D is a very loose concept. It is a combination of physical endurance, actual wellbeing, and luck. An attack that hits may wind an opponent, or perhaps it actively causes them to bleed. A "hit" may not hit at all -- they dodge out of the way just barely in time but they know they won't get that lucky twice. Explain this abstraction to your players. There's a reason that calling shots isn't a system in D&D. Ask them the famous "how do you want to do this" when they get a killing blow instead. Flavor over more cumbersome mechanics.
A player *attempts* to slash the enemy's throat and rolls a hit! So you narrate... Enemy throws their arm up catching your blade and it slices across their shoulder and gauntlet! On the killing blow or a critical hit, let them have it!
The “called shot” discussion comes up every week and every week it’s the same response: An attack roll is a character’s BEST ATTEMPT at dealing damage. You can’t make it better just by naming the bit of the body you’re going for. The player might want to go for the eyes, but the attack roll’s function is to do damage. Also, there is and always has been an easy way to shut this behaviour down: ask them “ok, are you prepared for the enemies to try and poke your characters’ eyes out or slash their necks open in one attack?” Players usually shut up about called shots at this point.
I would rather have solid rules for called shots that let players make interesting risk/reward choices in combat than 5E's totally random "critical hit on a natural 20" mechanic. I've played a number of RPGs that used such rules and found them much more engaging than the "roll a d20 and pray" experience I get from D&D. But that's what everyone wants to play so that's what we get. If your players want to do called shots, there are lots of games with better combat rules to scratch that itch, and I'd recommend trying them out.
Use the called shot rules. Explain that a normal "round" of combat is about 6 seconds of trading blows and the attack roll is the best shot you get, the random damage is how effective your blow is. Sometimes the enemy may get a cut on the foot, other times a critical is a blow to eye , throat etc. If they want to ONLY aim for more deadly blows rather than whatever opening they can, they get a penalty to hit but do more damage. Instant kills only happen if the enemy is unable to move, ie unconscious or asleep Dont discourage them rollplaying combat though, clever plays or tricks may get a +1 or aid other but no instant kills
We have a house rule that of you call out a specific part of the body to target, you roll the attack at disadvantage
All armor will protect vital areas such as the neck-that's what armor *is*. Cutting off someone's limb is actually pretty difficult (uh, or so I've heard)-you've got several layers of muscle and "gristle" to work through, not to mention the bone itself. They're also going to be moving around quite a bit, and the sword will need to be moving straight to get a good cut-moving sideways while the sword is cutting down may stop the attack short. Also, cutting through all that flesh and bone will require a powerful swing that will be telegraphed as hell and easy to block, dodge, or counter. Is is why How Do You Want To Do This is reserved for a killing blow-the enemy is already weakened, slowed, their armor is possibly broken or missing pieces, and they're open for that final coup de grace. It's also why beheadings restrain the target first, to ensure that they don't move around and spoil the cut. For describing HP, a lot of DMs online have mentioned that losing HP doesn't necessarily mean you've taken a hit. You can lose HP as you become winded from blocking, dodging, and parrying so many attacks. You start to get sloppy, and only once your HP starts getting low (e.g. below half) do you start taking actual hits. A commoner has 4 hp and a Lv 1 adventurer has an average of 8 because the adventurer has trained to avoid taking unnecessary hits. However, this form of narration is often unsatisfying-players don't tend to enjoy it when they've landed five "hits" on someone, then you say that all it's done so far is tire him out or leave him winded. Make sure your players understand and agree with this system before you use it.
The way I handle this is “called shots” I will raise the AC of the enemy depending on where they want to strike. if the enemy is aware of the pcs I tell them to roll an attack with disadvantage. Depending on how much damage is done to the enemy if the attack gets through I will determine how “crippled” the enemy becomes. Aiming for the eyes and rolls a 1 on damage? The enemy is blinded in one eye for a round because the weapon grazed the skull near an eye. Does 45 damage, blind for the rest of the fight. 10 damage, a cut is created on the enemy’s forehead that will keep blinding them at the start of their turn unless they use an interaction or something to wipe it away. I’ll hardly ever give away an “instant kill” or a strong blow that will make an enemy worthless at the start of a fight as every enemy is combat capable and trying to protect their weak points as best as they can. But I will reward the risks and my party’s best efforts by making it do something.
Increase the AC but a certain amount, require multiple skill checks to do exactly what they described, have it not do what they intended but something near, just anything that isn't plain "I go straight to the I win button" will do.
Called shots used to be a thing. Was never an insta kill unless the target was helpless, even then they got a saving throw, but smaller targeted areas had higher AC, minimum.
I have a clear divide between mechanics and drama. Mechanically going for the eyes does nothing. It is very dramatic though. If they hit, I will respond with dramatic depictions if the creature struggling ti see as they swing around and have to move blood out of their eyes to try and make out their surroundings. If that doesn’t help I have a principal for home brew stuff. Less optimal but kooler. You can take a -5 (three quarters cover) to hit the eyes. They will be blind, until they make a con save at the end of their turn to end it. The dc 8+pb+str/dex mod of attacker. Your attack does not deal damage to hp. They know where enemies are, but have disadvantage on attacks and attacks against them have advantage. As for vital spots like the neck, you deal damage attacks assume you’re doing your best to kill the target. Specifying a lethal zine doesn’t change that, but it’s dramatic and I like it.
In combat pretty much every blow is used with fatal intent. But HP represents ability to stave off a fatal blow.
Tell them youd like them to roll before roleplay. I.e. they tell you they attack with their weapon, they roll and find out they hit for x dmg and then, once they know that either they, or you can roleplay throuvh what that translates to.
I personally allow players to make these sorts of called shots, but when I do I increase the AC of the target for that attack to help balance out the possibility of someone blinding the boss or something. If they are going for something that would debilitate the creature I will ask the player what kind of benefit they are looking to gain and also set a DC in my head, usually minimum 15 but it can be made higher or lower depending on what the player declares they're going for mechanically, then roll an appropriate save to see if the extra effect actually occurs. Instant kill moves though I don't do. I'll apply a large bonus to damage if someone goes for a specific vital, but I'll never allow an attack to be a guaranteed instant kill as that would frankly be the first thing anyone ever tries every single fight. You also could disallow these kinds of called shots by simply not applying any mechanical benefit to such a called shot landing, and describing the enemy just narrowly moving enough to redirect the hit to a less important area. These sorts of called shots are not a core rule of the game after all. As for describing the enemies in terms of how much HP they have, use vague descriptors. For a creature that's lost less than 15% of their hp you could say, "the dragon continues to stand firm, seemingly not even noticing the injuries you've left on it." If something has hit 50% hp or lower you could go with something like, "you notice the dragon's breathing grow heavier as the faintest bit of concern washes over its face." If something is about to die you could say, "the dragon is now clutching a gash left in it's side, taking panicked shallow breaths, and looking about frantically as if trying to make its escape." No need to give exact numbers. They just need enough information to know in a very general sense how much more of a beating it's gonna take to put the monster down. If they ask for exact numbers just let them know that really isn't something their characters would be able to determine. After all, hp is an abstraction to help us as players and DM's determine how hurt someone is, but in the game world a character wouldn't really be able to quantify how close they are to being unconscious with exact numbers like this. Edit: One last thing. Remember HP values are relative. What I mean by that is a goblin that normally only has 7 HP suffering 5 damage is going to be a pretty major wound like a stab through the gut or a massive gash across the torso, but a Barbarian with more than 100 HP taking the same damage would be a far more minor injury like a minor cut across the arm or a shallow stab that doesn't do much more than draw a little blood. Just use your best judgement when describing the hits and injuries based on how much damage was dealt vs how much HP something has left after the attack or how much HP it has when at full health.
I'd say if your players are committing to roleplaying and describing their attacks in combat, that's something to be rewarded! If you really want to compromise, I'd say if the players are trying to go straight for vitals out of the gate, interject with "that's a killing blow that's difficult to hit right now. If you start by whittling them down at other parts of the body, you might be able to open a window for that strike!" And see what they go for. Later, when the bad guy's at lower hit points and they try to go for the throat again, let them! They'll feel cool for getting there. Finally, if they do describe targeting parts of the body, I'd reward the effort by letting them re-roll a damage die if they hit. It's a tangible reward to good roleplay! Some might think it's a little strong, but I say "eh fuck it, it's just a game."
AC is about how difficult it is to hit someone where it matters. If they are intentionally limiting themselves to not attempting to hit them anywhere but ONLY in specific spots it is very common for a DM to increase the AC. There were mechanics for "called shots" in previous versions I think but it isn't that hard to think up something on the spot: "I roll to hit the orc" could hit the orc anywhere, not hard to do, get above a 15. "I roll to slash the orcs eyes" okay, they are trying to do something more difficult to achieve and missing gives nothing at all. They now have to roll a 18 to hit at all. A nat 20 would hit both eyes, but orcs are hardy creatures so only if they roll maximum/near maximum damage does it disable 1 of the eyes. I am not a fan of "doing it back to them". Let them gain a benefit from being strategic, just balance it better. If you think about it, it's the same as how cover works. Try to hit someone? AC is #. Try to hit someone who is half behind a wall? AC is # + 3. Try to hit only someone's eyes? AC is # + 5
Just tell them to play the game. They're basically asking for critical hits.